It’s a tale as old as time. Conservatives find themselves backed into a political corner, usually right before a contentious election season. In need of something to mobilize their anti-choice base, they launch an attack on reproductive health through another attempt to shut down the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The collateral damage: time, energy and resources spent responding to the attack, instead of focusing on the crisis of reproductive health care access in America.

It was just before the 2012 election that conservative Republicans made their last previous attempt at passing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. Now again, we can anticipate that legislation will be introduced in Congress to prevent any federal funds going to the country’s biggest provider of reproductive health care.

The old playbook is out again. Recently an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, representing itself as a medical research firm, released secretly recorded, and heavily edited, videos of Planned Parenthood staff discussing fetal tissue donation, a service Planned Parenthood offers to its patients. Should they choose, someone who gets an abortion at Planned Parenthood can make the fetal tissue available for medical research purposes. Planned Parenthood denies any profit or wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, a court issued a temporary restraining order preventing The Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos featuring leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. Despite this, the attacks continue. The websites of Planned Parenthood, The National Network of Abortion Funds and the Abortion Care Network were hacked and shut down. A separate anti-abortion group, calling themselves “E,” took credit for hacking the nonprofits databases and gaining access to employee names and emails.

Though we all made this argument the last time Planned Parenthood was under attack, it bears repeating: Due to the Hyde Amendment, no federal funding can pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest and life endangerment. This, of course, includes any funding Planned Parenthood gets for contraception, cervical cancer screenings, and well-woman exams. Nonetheless, demonstrating no commitment to the facts, Texas Sen. John Cornyn falsely cited the Hyde Amendment as justification for passing an anti-abortion bill now under consideration in Senate, saying: “This legislation will bring Planned Parenthood in line with something that’s been the law since 1976.”

Instead of once again making the same arguments, playing into the conservative plan to focus on Planned Parenthood and change the conversation, this time let’s focus on a few reproductive health issues that ought to be in the news but aren’t:

2. Safety for women and children in immigration detention centers. This week a federal judge ruled that the detention of migrant children and their mothers is in breach of the law, and that the families should be released as soon as possible. Judge Dolly Gee issued a ruling, calling the conditions inside these detention centers “deplorable” and determined that Obama administration’s detention of children and their mothers is illegal and unjust. If those who assert their commitment to innocent lives, in fact cared about innocent lives, they would be picketing these detention centers where women and children are being held without being charged with a crime, subject to the horrific conditions of inadequate food, medicine and sanitation.

3. The horribly unjust and unconscionable Hyde Amendment, which prevents many low-income people from getting access to abortion coverage through health care, just because they are poor. May it’s overturn come soon and swiftly. While some are taking comfort in the fact that the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land, those of us that care about equality and economic justice should be fighting tooth and nail to overturn it. In fact, there’s new legislation, called the EACH Woman Act, that would do just that. We would do well to respond to these attacks against reproductive freedom by passing it.

Those of us, and there are many, who believe that these attacks against Planned Parenthood are disingenuous and troubling ought to be sure not to take our eyes off our goals, and off these important stories. We must refuse to get pulled into the smoke and mirrors show that anti-choice activists are using to distract us: many lives depend on it.

It’s a tale as old as time. Conservatives find themselves backed into a political corner, usually right before a contentious election season. In need of something to mobilize their anti-choice base, they launch an attack on reproductive health through another attempt to shut down the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The collateral damage: time, energy and resources spent responding to the attack, instead of focusing on the crisis of reproductive health care access in America.

It was just before the 2012 election that conservative Republicans made their last previous attempt at passing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. Now again, we can anticipate that legislation will be introduced in Congress to prevent any federal funds going to the country’s biggest provider of reproductive health care.

The old playbook is out again. Recently an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, representing itself as a medical research firm, released secretly recorded, and heavily edited, videos of Planned Parenthood staff discussing fetal tissue donation, a service Planned Parenthood offers to its patients. Should they choose, someone who gets an abortion at Planned Parenthood can make the fetal tissue available for medical research purposes. Planned Parenthood denies any profit or wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, a court issued a temporary restraining order preventing The Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos featuring leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. Despite this, the attacks continue. The websites of Planned Parenthood, The National Network of Abortion Funds and the Abortion Care Network were hacked and shut down. A separate anti-abortion group, calling themselves “E,” took credit for hacking the nonprofits databases and gaining access to employee names and emails.

Though we all made this argument the last time Planned Parenthood was under attack, it bears repeating: Due to the Hyde Amendment, no federal funding can pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest and life endangerment. This, of course, includes any funding Planned Parenthood gets for contraception, cervical cancer screenings, and well-woman exams. Nonetheless, demonstrating no commitment to the facts, Texas Sen. John Cornyn falsely cited the Hyde Amendment as justification for passing an anti-abortion bill now under consideration in Senate, saying: “This legislation will bring Planned Parenthood in line with something that’s been the law since 1976.”

Instead of once again making the same arguments, playing into the conservative plan to focus on Planned Parenthood and change the conversation, this time let’s focus on a few reproductive health issues that ought to be in the news but aren’t:

2. Safety for women and children in immigration detention centers. This week a federal judge ruled that the detention of migrant children and their mothers is in breach of the law, and that the families should be released as soon as possible. Judge Dolly Gee issued a ruling, calling the conditions inside these detention centers “deplorable” and determined that Obama administration’s detention of children and their mothers is illegal and unjust. If those who assert their commitment to innocent lives, in fact cared about innocent lives, they would be picketing these detention centers where women and children are being held without being charged with a crime, subject to the horrific conditions of inadequate food, medicine and sanitation.

3. The horribly unjust and unconscionable Hyde Amendment, which prevents many low-income people from getting access to abortion coverage through health care, just because they are poor. May it’s overturn come soon and swiftly. While some are taking comfort in the fact that the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land, those of us that care about equality and economic justice should be fighting tooth and nail to overturn it. In fact, there’s new legislation, called the EACH Woman Act, that would do just that. We would do well to respond to these attacks against reproductive freedom by passing it.

Those of us, and there are many, who believe that these attacks against Planned Parenthood are disingenuous and troubling ought to be sure not to take our eyes off our goals, and off these important stories. We must refuse to get pulled into the smoke and mirrors show that anti-choice activists are using to distract us: many lives depend on it.

But Alabama has brought efforts to restrict abortion to a whole new level, as the state tried this week to stop a woman from getting an abortion by terminating her parental rights... to her fetus.

District attorney Chris Connolly filed a petition to terminate an incarcerated woman’s parental rights for the sole purpose of stopping her from ending her pregnancy. The woman, known as Jane Doe, had filed a lawsuit in order to be granted a furlough to obtain the procedure. Connolly told a local paper, “Our position, if the termination for parental rights is granted, is that [she] would not have standing to obtain the abortion.” He’s arguing that Doe’s parental rights should be rescinded because she is facing charges of chemical endangerment of a child.

Alabama ACLU legal director Randall Marshall, one of the woman’s lawyers, told the Huffington Post that this is the first time the state has used these charges to try to prevent an abortion. “It appears to me that what the state is attempting to do is turn Jane Doe into a vessel, and control every aspect of her life,” he said.

Baffling legal maneuvering aside, what’s worst in cases like this one in Alabama – where the state focuses its misogynist ire on the most marginalized women – is that they’re commonplace. Women in prison, women who use drugs, women of color and low-income women have long been targets for anti-choice legislators, not just because they have less support to fight back, but because the people attacking them believe that no one will care. It’s nastiness of the worst sort.

Abortion is legal. And while I’d like to say that no amount of strange, overreaching and insulting litigation or legislation will change that, it has, and it still could. And if it does, we know who will be penalized most.

But Alabama has brought efforts to restrict abortion to a whole new level, as the state tried this week to stop a woman from getting an abortion by terminating her parental rights... to her fetus.

District attorney Chris Connolly filed a petition to terminate an incarcerated woman’s parental rights for the sole purpose of stopping her from ending her pregnancy. The woman, known as Jane Doe, had filed a lawsuit in order to be granted a furlough to obtain the procedure. Connolly told a local paper, “Our position, if the termination for parental rights is granted, is that [she] would not have standing to obtain the abortion.” He’s arguing that Doe’s parental rights should be rescinded because she is facing charges of chemical endangerment of a child.

Alabama ACLU legal director Randall Marshall, one of the woman’s lawyers, told the Huffington Post that this is the first time the state has used these charges to try to prevent an abortion. “It appears to me that what the state is attempting to do is turn Jane Doe into a vessel, and control every aspect of her life,” he said.

Baffling legal maneuvering aside, what’s worst in cases like this one in Alabama – where the state focuses its misogynist ire on the most marginalized women – is that they’re commonplace. Women in prison, women who use drugs, women of color and low-income women have long been targets for anti-choice legislators, not just because they have less support to fight back, but because the people attacking them believe that no one will care. It’s nastiness of the worst sort.

Abortion is legal. And while I’d like to say that no amount of strange, overreaching and insulting litigation or legislation will change that, it has, and it still could. And if it does, we know who will be penalized most.

In the movies, we jump sleep with practically every interviewee. Strange how the men don’t get that treatment.

A couple of years ago, my editor told me to interview a well-known actor. I mentioned this to a friend, and he smirked knowingly. “Better cancel your evening plans. I know at least three female journalists who slept with him after interviewing him,” he said. “Well, I don’t know them, but I’ve heard the stories.”

I rolled my eyes. “Oh the stories. Well, that sounds totally credible. Anyway, it’s never even occurred to me to sleep with an interviewee,” I said.

“Really?” he said, amazed.

I was now more intrigued by his amazement at my failure to shag on the job than the prospect of a celebrity trying to seduce me. Was this yet another part of journalism I’d somehow missed out on, like learning shorthand? No, of course not. (Seriously, have you seen most journalists? No one’s trying to sleep with us – as a demographic, we’re a riposte to Darwinism.) But I eventually understood my friend’s amazement: among all the lessons to be gleaned from Hollywood movies, there are few that have become as established as the idea that female journalists have sex with the people they’re writing about.

Judd Apatow’s comedy Trainwreck, which stars and is written by Amy Schumer, will come to the UK next month. Despite its pretence to edginess, it is utterly conventional, not least in its depiction of – can you guess? – female journalists. The movie tells the story of Amy, a journalist who is assigned by her editor to write a profile of a sexy sports doctor. (All sports doctors are sexy – this, too, is an ironclad truth in pop culture.) So off she goes and promptly gets drunk with the doctor – and has sex with him – because how else do female journalists get to know their subjects?

In 1940’s His Girl Friday, Hildy Johnson was so engrossed in her work, she didn’t even notice the romantic machinations around her masterminded by her ex-husband – and he was played by Cary Grant, for heaven’s sake. Now, the idea that female journalists work by spreading their legs has become so established, it is damn near a trope.

Whereas male journalists in movies work by using their malicious minds (Kirk Douglas in Ace in the Hole, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler) or unimpeachable morality (Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All the President’s Men, George Clooney and David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck), their female counterparts use a part of their anatomy that has nothing to do with their brain. Sometimes they do it to get a story, sometimes it just happens because, well, that’s what it’s like being a female journalist: you go to the office and, next thing you know, your knickers are around your ankles.

Just off the top of my head, here is a selection of fictional female journalists who sleep their way through their jobs: Chelsea (Rosario Dawson) has sex in a club bathroom with the celebrity actor (Chris Rock) she’s profiling in Top Five; in Crazy Heart, Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) rescues an alcoholic country singer (Jeff Bridges) she’s interviewing through the redemptive power of her magical vagina (an essential tool for female journalists, along with serious spectacles and an ugly jacket); in Three Kings, Cathy (Judy Greer) trades sex for stories with Clooney – which, to be fair, is an experience all female journalists have had; in the excellent Nightcrawler, TV news editor Nina (Rene Russo) sleeps with a creepy journalist (Jake Gyllenhaal) in order to maintain his loyalty; Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) swiftly ends up in bed with Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) in Anchorman; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) ends up having sex with, if memory serves, just about everyone in Adaptation, which must have come as a surprise to the real-life Orlean, a respected journalist; poor TV producer Jane (Holly Hunter) tries her best to sleep with airheaded anchor Tom (William Hurt) in Broadcast News, but life keeps thwarting them. Even Lois Lane fell for Superman, after all.

Then there are the female journalists who are specifically assigned to manipulate or sleep with men, in such films as How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days and the TV adaptation of Sex and the City, in which Carrie Bradshaw’s entire beat is her bedroom, even though that was certainly not the case in the original columns by Candace Bushnell.

Occasionally, the depiction of the women journalists in movies is tied to their source material, which proves just how deep-rooted this cliche is, beloved beyond Hollywood studios. In Thank You for Smoking, Washington journalist Heather (Katie Holmes) maliciously seduces the poor tobacco lobbyist for the sake of a story. Bridget Jones’s only news scoop comes thanks to help from Mark Darcy, who she ends up snogging on a street corner. In the utterly tedious The Devil Wears Prada, fashion journalist Andy (Anne Hathaway) ends up in bed with a photographer during fashion week, even though I can speak from personal experience that fashion week is so sexless it is essentially a nunnery with more expensive clothes.

And of course, there’s House of Cards, both UK and US versions, in which a young female journalist engages in kinky sex with a creepy politician for a story. Presumably Lord Sewel had been watching House of Cards a little too keenly when he was caught this week boasting that he had slept with a female BBC journalist. “She was very young and it was very pleasant,” he said, like a cut-price Francis Urquhart. The journalist swiftly denied this nonsense.

To a certain extent, the depiction of female journalists in films reflects how movies in general belittle women who work these days. Women’s jobs, today’s Hollywood movies imply, are a mere hurdle they need to scale before discovering the meaning of life (marriage). But the Hollywood obsession with female journalists’ sex lives feels especially ridiculous as there are few professionals who film folk encounter more than journalists. So this idea that female journalists are all just dying to jump into bed with them is a fascinating insight into certain film-makers’ tragic sexual fantasies.

Incidentally, I didn’t sleep with the actor – he didn’t even make a move on me, thank God. In fact, the only personal interaction we had afterwards was when he called the next week to berate me for misspelling his ex-girlfriend’s surname in the paper. Honestly, you could have cut the sexual tension with a knife.

In the movies, we jump sleep with practically every interviewee. Strange how the men don’t get that treatment.

A couple of years ago, my editor told me to interview a well-known actor. I mentioned this to a friend, and he smirked knowingly. “Better cancel your evening plans. I know at least three female journalists who slept with him after interviewing him,” he said. “Well, I don’t know them, but I’ve heard the stories.”

I rolled my eyes. “Oh the stories. Well, that sounds totally credible. Anyway, it’s never even occurred to me to sleep with an interviewee,” I said.

“Really?” he said, amazed.

I was now more intrigued by his amazement at my failure to shag on the job than the prospect of a celebrity trying to seduce me. Was this yet another part of journalism I’d somehow missed out on, like learning shorthand? No, of course not. (Seriously, have you seen most journalists? No one’s trying to sleep with us – as a demographic, we’re a riposte to Darwinism.) But I eventually understood my friend’s amazement: among all the lessons to be gleaned from Hollywood movies, there are few that have become as established as the idea that female journalists have sex with the people they’re writing about.

Judd Apatow’s comedy Trainwreck, which stars and is written by Amy Schumer, will come to the UK next month. Despite its pretence to edginess, it is utterly conventional, not least in its depiction of – can you guess? – female journalists. The movie tells the story of Amy, a journalist who is assigned by her editor to write a profile of a sexy sports doctor. (All sports doctors are sexy – this, too, is an ironclad truth in pop culture.) So off she goes and promptly gets drunk with the doctor – and has sex with him – because how else do female journalists get to know their subjects?

In 1940’s His Girl Friday, Hildy Johnson was so engrossed in her work, she didn’t even notice the romantic machinations around her masterminded by her ex-husband – and he was played by Cary Grant, for heaven’s sake. Now, the idea that female journalists work by spreading their legs has become so established, it is damn near a trope.

Whereas male journalists in movies work by using their malicious minds (Kirk Douglas in Ace in the Hole, Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler) or unimpeachable morality (Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in All the President’s Men, George Clooney and David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck), their female counterparts use a part of their anatomy that has nothing to do with their brain. Sometimes they do it to get a story, sometimes it just happens because, well, that’s what it’s like being a female journalist: you go to the office and, next thing you know, your knickers are around your ankles.

Just off the top of my head, here is a selection of fictional female journalists who sleep their way through their jobs: Chelsea (Rosario Dawson) has sex in a club bathroom with the celebrity actor (Chris Rock) she’s profiling in Top Five; in Crazy Heart, Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) rescues an alcoholic country singer (Jeff Bridges) she’s interviewing through the redemptive power of her magical vagina (an essential tool for female journalists, along with serious spectacles and an ugly jacket); in Three Kings, Cathy (Judy Greer) trades sex for stories with Clooney – which, to be fair, is an experience all female journalists have had; in the excellent Nightcrawler, TV news editor Nina (Rene Russo) sleeps with a creepy journalist (Jake Gyllenhaal) in order to maintain his loyalty; Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) swiftly ends up in bed with Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) in Anchorman; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) ends up having sex with, if memory serves, just about everyone in Adaptation, which must have come as a surprise to the real-life Orlean, a respected journalist; poor TV producer Jane (Holly Hunter) tries her best to sleep with airheaded anchor Tom (William Hurt) in Broadcast News, but life keeps thwarting them. Even Lois Lane fell for Superman, after all.

Then there are the female journalists who are specifically assigned to manipulate or sleep with men, in such films as How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days and the TV adaptation of Sex and the City, in which Carrie Bradshaw’s entire beat is her bedroom, even though that was certainly not the case in the original columns by Candace Bushnell.

Occasionally, the depiction of the women journalists in movies is tied to their source material, which proves just how deep-rooted this cliche is, beloved beyond Hollywood studios. In Thank You for Smoking, Washington journalist Heather (Katie Holmes) maliciously seduces the poor tobacco lobbyist for the sake of a story. Bridget Jones’s only news scoop comes thanks to help from Mark Darcy, who she ends up snogging on a street corner. In the utterly tedious The Devil Wears Prada, fashion journalist Andy (Anne Hathaway) ends up in bed with a photographer during fashion week, even though I can speak from personal experience that fashion week is so sexless it is essentially a nunnery with more expensive clothes.

And of course, there’s House of Cards, both UK and US versions, in which a young female journalist engages in kinky sex with a creepy politician for a story. Presumably Lord Sewel had been watching House of Cards a little too keenly when he was caught this week boasting that he had slept with a female BBC journalist. “She was very young and it was very pleasant,” he said, like a cut-price Francis Urquhart. The journalist swiftly denied this nonsense.

To a certain extent, the depiction of female journalists in films reflects how movies in general belittle women who work these days. Women’s jobs, today’s Hollywood movies imply, are a mere hurdle they need to scale before discovering the meaning of life (marriage). But the Hollywood obsession with female journalists’ sex lives feels especially ridiculous as there are few professionals who film folk encounter more than journalists. So this idea that female journalists are all just dying to jump into bed with them is a fascinating insight into certain film-makers’ tragic sexual fantasies.

Incidentally, I didn’t sleep with the actor – he didn’t even make a move on me, thank God. In fact, the only personal interaction we had afterwards was when he called the next week to berate me for misspelling his ex-girlfriend’s surname in the paper. Honestly, you could have cut the sexual tension with a knife.

Republican lawmakers and anti-choice extremists should take note of Sister Joan Chittister.

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers and anti-choice extremists who continue to introduce/pass misogynist laws restricting a woman's reproductive rights, as they work to shut down women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood. You don't hear of these same extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies. But you do hear of these extremists cutting simple programs like schools lunches for children, cutting aid to families who are homeless/in need, and blocking free college tuition. No, the goals of these hypocrites seem to be to control women, their bodies, their families, and their futures. It's good to hear a Catholic nun define the GOP double talk so well.

An outspoken advocate for women, Sister Joan Chittister is an author of 50 books and a lecturer. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate in a division of Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing includes women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media on numerous shows including Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, BBC, NPR, and Oprah Winfrey. You can visit Joan Chittister's website at Joan Chittister.org.

Excerpts of this story were taken from an earlier Daily Kos diary: 'Anti-Choice Extremists Shut Down Planned Parenthood Website'

Republican lawmakers and anti-choice extremists should take note of Sister Joan Chittister.

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers and anti-choice extremists who continue to introduce/pass misogynist laws restricting a woman's reproductive rights, as they work to shut down women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood. You don't hear of these same extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies. But you do hear of these extremists cutting simple programs like schools lunches for children, cutting aid to families who are homeless/in need, and blocking free college tuition. No, the goals of these hypocrites seem to be to control women, their bodies, their families, and their futures. It's good to hear a Catholic nun define the GOP double talk so well.

An outspoken advocate for women, Sister Joan Chittister is an author of 50 books and a lecturer. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate in a division of Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing includes women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media on numerous shows including Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, BBC, NPR, and Oprah Winfrey. You can visit Joan Chittister's website at Joan Chittister.org.

Excerpts of this story were taken from an earlier Daily Kos diary: 'Anti-Choice Extremists Shut Down Planned Parenthood Website'

It tells us a lot about why misogyny continues to be such a major problem.

If you’re a woman who plays or even just talks about video games online, odds are you’ve encountered the misogynist flying monkeys of the Internet: Troops of bizarrely embittered young men, often using the name “Gamergate,” who aim inchoate rage at all sorts of women they encounter, but particularly feminists and women they suspect might be--gasp--sexually active. Ordinary women find that being known as female while playing online video games means having shocking number of sexually harassing comments thrown your way.

Under the circumstances, it’s not surprising that a study which showed that men who are bad at video games are more likely to harass women online, went viral. Psychology researchers from the University of New South Wales and Miami University did a study where they compared men’s performance playing Halo 3 online to the amount of misogynist harassment they were dishing out. The result? A direct and strong correlation between how badly men were doing in the game and how nasty they were to women. Men, no matter how good they were, were cordial to each other. But the men who were good at the game were generally nice to women and men who sucked were the ones dishing out sexualized abuse to the women they encountered.

“In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers,” wrote Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, this paper has a major flaw, though not in its research. (Does anyone doubt that the man-children lashing out at women online are losers?) The researchers are a bunch of “evolutionary psychology” enthusiasts, and they try to fit their findings into a just-so story that makes everything about some hypothetical mating strategies of our distant ancestors.

"As higher-skilled players have less to fear from hierarchical reorganization, we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention,” the original paper reads. “Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.”

In other words, they tried to fit this data into the unevidenced but popular evo psych notion that everything we do is “hardwired” and about men struggling for sexual attention. “There are assumptions galore in there: that the human ancestral condition was a male-dominated hierarchy in which low-status males could obtain access to sex by oppressing women,” biologist PZ Myers scoffed. “Why should we think that, rather than that the behavior is a consequence of contemporary culture?” Indeed. If it was all about sex, after all, it would make more sense for the lower-skilled men to flatter women, since they aren’t getting any by impressing them. But sense and a desire to prove “the innate differences between males and females” driving the researchers’ work parted ways decades ago, if they were ever on familiar terms.

Still, the data set these researchers put together is sound, even if the conclusions they draw are not. There’s a better, more likely explanation for their results: some people who are feeling bad about themselves try to regain a sense of mastery by picking on someone they think is down the social pecking order from them.

In other words, these guys are bullies. They pick on women not because of some elaborate hardwired mating game, but because men are socialized to think women are weaker and somehow inferior to men. They pick on women because they think women are a soft target. In addition, men are socialized to think that failure is emasculating. They pick on women for the same reason kids at school like to bully the nerdy kid or the fat kid or the gay kid: To feel bigger and better than someone else, to get that rush of power over someone else, to kill a perceived weakness inside of them, to trick other people into thinking they're big and tough.

It’s all so simple, but it tells us a lot about the way of the world and why misogyny continues to be such a major problem. Take, for instance, the recent situation with Reddit dropping CEO Ellen Pao. Regardless of what internal debates were going on at the company, it is undeniable that thousands of angry man-children organized to demand her ouster. As usual with trolls, these men painted themselves as noble warriors fighting for truth and justice, but as Pao herself said after her resignation, they were a bunch of trolls.

Tech writers Katherine Cross and Sam Biddle have both done post-mortems of what happened, and have drawn the same conclusion: Regardless of what mantle Pao’s haters were flying under, the real reason for the harassment campaign, ironically, was their anger at her attempts to shut down harassment, especially harassment of women, that was originating from Reddit. It was, in Biddle’s memorable phrase, “the toxic praetorian guard of the men’s rights-Gamergate axis” that jealously guards their supposed “right” to harass women and people of color online, because it makes them feel powerful to do so. It is these same kinds of losers who call a woman “cunt” on Halo 3 because she beats them at the game.

It would be tempting, in light of this, to wonder if all these angry, hateful men need better self-esteem. Sadly, life is not an after-school special, and not everything is about learning to hug it out and move on. After all, plenty of people would like to feel more powerful, but they don’t go out and find perceived social inferiors to yell at. The reason these men lash out at women is that they feel entitled to do so. It’s as if they imagine that women are little more than ciphers for pouring all their rage and frustration and anger with the world out onto. Rejected by the girl you liked? Why not go onto Twitter and spread rumors about some random feminist’s sex life? Angry that you didn’t get the job you want? Why not call Anita Sarkeesian a “cunt”? Mad that the world doesn’t recognize you are a genius? Sign a petition to get Ellen Pao fired from her job.

Writer Lindy West captured this dynamic in a segment for This American Life, when she interviewed a man who harassed her through a Twitter account. In the interview, in which he apologized for his actions, he admitted he had a lot of self-loathing about his weight and he lashed out at West because he was angry and jealous of her self-acceptance of her own weight.

People are going to feel low sometimes and are going to want a quick fix to feel powerful. What we need, as a society, is to discourage men from chasing that quick fix by picking on women in this way. Sure, maybe teach better coping mechanisms--get some therapy, learn a hobby, get some exercise--but more importantly, stop seeing women as ciphers that exist for them to dump on. Learn to see women as equals and people who, like men, are worthy of respect. The study showed that the loser men didn’t lash out at other men. So the key here is clearly respect. Get that, and we actually start to fix the problem.

It tells us a lot about why misogyny continues to be such a major problem.

If you’re a woman who plays or even just talks about video games online, odds are you’ve encountered the misogynist flying monkeys of the Internet: Troops of bizarrely embittered young men, often using the name “Gamergate,” who aim inchoate rage at all sorts of women they encounter, but particularly feminists and women they suspect might be--gasp--sexually active. Ordinary women find that being known as female while playing online video games means having shocking number of sexually harassing comments thrown your way.

Under the circumstances, it’s not surprising that a study which showed that men who are bad at video games are more likely to harass women online, went viral. Psychology researchers from the University of New South Wales and Miami University did a study where they compared men’s performance playing Halo 3 online to the amount of misogynist harassment they were dishing out. The result? A direct and strong correlation between how badly men were doing in the game and how nasty they were to women. Men, no matter how good they were, were cordial to each other. But the men who were good at the game were generally nice to women and men who sucked were the ones dishing out sexualized abuse to the women they encountered.

“In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers,” wrote Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, this paper has a major flaw, though not in its research. (Does anyone doubt that the man-children lashing out at women online are losers?) The researchers are a bunch of “evolutionary psychology” enthusiasts, and they try to fit their findings into a just-so story that makes everything about some hypothetical mating strategies of our distant ancestors.

"As higher-skilled players have less to fear from hierarchical reorganization, we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention,” the original paper reads. “Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.”

In other words, they tried to fit this data into the unevidenced but popular evo psych notion that everything we do is “hardwired” and about men struggling for sexual attention. “There are assumptions galore in there: that the human ancestral condition was a male-dominated hierarchy in which low-status males could obtain access to sex by oppressing women,” biologist PZ Myers scoffed. “Why should we think that, rather than that the behavior is a consequence of contemporary culture?” Indeed. If it was all about sex, after all, it would make more sense for the lower-skilled men to flatter women, since they aren’t getting any by impressing them. But sense and a desire to prove “the innate differences between males and females” driving the researchers’ work parted ways decades ago, if they were ever on familiar terms.

Still, the data set these researchers put together is sound, even if the conclusions they draw are not. There’s a better, more likely explanation for their results: some people who are feeling bad about themselves try to regain a sense of mastery by picking on someone they think is down the social pecking order from them.

In other words, these guys are bullies. They pick on women not because of some elaborate hardwired mating game, but because men are socialized to think women are weaker and somehow inferior to men. They pick on women because they think women are a soft target. In addition, men are socialized to think that failure is emasculating. They pick on women for the same reason kids at school like to bully the nerdy kid or the fat kid or the gay kid: To feel bigger and better than someone else, to get that rush of power over someone else, to kill a perceived weakness inside of them, to trick other people into thinking they're big and tough.

It’s all so simple, but it tells us a lot about the way of the world and why misogyny continues to be such a major problem. Take, for instance, the recent situation with Reddit dropping CEO Ellen Pao. Regardless of what internal debates were going on at the company, it is undeniable that thousands of angry man-children organized to demand her ouster. As usual with trolls, these men painted themselves as noble warriors fighting for truth and justice, but as Pao herself said after her resignation, they were a bunch of trolls.

Tech writers Katherine Cross and Sam Biddle have both done post-mortems of what happened, and have drawn the same conclusion: Regardless of what mantle Pao’s haters were flying under, the real reason for the harassment campaign, ironically, was their anger at her attempts to shut down harassment, especially harassment of women, that was originating from Reddit. It was, in Biddle’s memorable phrase, “the toxic praetorian guard of the men’s rights-Gamergate axis” that jealously guards their supposed “right” to harass women and people of color online, because it makes them feel powerful to do so. It is these same kinds of losers who call a woman “cunt” on Halo 3 because she beats them at the game.

It would be tempting, in light of this, to wonder if all these angry, hateful men need better self-esteem. Sadly, life is not an after-school special, and not everything is about learning to hug it out and move on. After all, plenty of people would like to feel more powerful, but they don’t go out and find perceived social inferiors to yell at. The reason these men lash out at women is that they feel entitled to do so. It’s as if they imagine that women are little more than ciphers for pouring all their rage and frustration and anger with the world out onto. Rejected by the girl you liked? Why not go onto Twitter and spread rumors about some random feminist’s sex life? Angry that you didn’t get the job you want? Why not call Anita Sarkeesian a “cunt”? Mad that the world doesn’t recognize you are a genius? Sign a petition to get Ellen Pao fired from her job.

Writer Lindy West captured this dynamic in a segment for This American Life, when she interviewed a man who harassed her through a Twitter account. In the interview, in which he apologized for his actions, he admitted he had a lot of self-loathing about his weight and he lashed out at West because he was angry and jealous of her self-acceptance of her own weight.

People are going to feel low sometimes and are going to want a quick fix to feel powerful. What we need, as a society, is to discourage men from chasing that quick fix by picking on women in this way. Sure, maybe teach better coping mechanisms--get some therapy, learn a hobby, get some exercise--but more importantly, stop seeing women as ciphers that exist for them to dump on. Learn to see women as equals and people who, like men, are worthy of respect. The study showed that the loser men didn’t lash out at other men. So the key here is clearly respect. Get that, and we actually start to fix the problem.

“We are here to speak for them, to call for their release. When there is an injustice, silence is complicity,” said Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of School of the Americas Watch and a decades-long advocate for human rights in Latin America. He was referring to the 17 women, known as Las 17, who are currently serving 30-year sentences in prison for having miscarriages in El Salvador.

Father Roy Bourgeois is one of the six human rights activists who staged a sit-in at the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington, DC on April 24, 2015 calling for the release of the women. Four of the protesters were arrested by the Secret Service.

“It was an honor to go to the embassy and be arrested in solidarity with the women in El Salvador” said Father Bourgeois. “Our greatest enemy in the United States is ignorance, so our job is to tell the stories.”

An overwhelming number of women in El Salvador--particularly poor, unmarried, uneducated women--face outrageous human rights violations as they are denied autonomy over their bodies. El Salvador has one of the strictest and most archaic anti-abortion laws in the world; it has a total ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies. Women who have miscarriages or stillborn births are confronted with suspicion from authorities. The legal system has an built-in “presumption of guilt,” making it virtually impossible for women to prove their innocence. Instead, these women are charged with manslaughter and imprisoned. All too often Salvadoran women are forced to live a life of overwhelming stigmatization and marginalization.

This past March, Father Roy Bourgeois led a delegation of human rights activists to El Salvador where he met with Salvadoran President Sánchez Cerén, human rights leaders, and five of the women in prison. Father Roy discovered a common theme among the women’s stories: they are all lower-class, poorly educated, single women who work domestic jobs for wealthier families. What led to the miscarriages? A lack of access to healthy food frequently leads to malnourishment among the impoverished in El Salvador. Tragically, that could have caused the miscarriages. As the women recounted their stories, they painted a grim picture: fainting as a result of blood loss, waking up in a hospital handcuffed to a bed, and ultimately being transferred to prison.

For the first year of their sentence, the women were forced to sleep on the floor of their cell like sardines, pressed next to each other. They were given only a gallon of water every two days for both drinking and bathing--water that is not drinkable by U.S. standards. Father Bourgeois was haunted by the stories of the women he met. When he returned to the United States, he couldn’t sleep. “I have never been more affected by a group of people than I was by this group of women,” he told CODEPINK.

Amnesty International put out a petition calling for the release of Las 17, a petition that received an incredible 700,000 signatures and counting. Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International's Americas Director, stated, “For almost two decades women in El Salvador have suffered the consequences of this outdated, draconian law and...now voices from the global community join their struggle to stop the injustice. This is now a deafening chorus of concern that cannot be ignored. President Cerén must heed this call.”

The Salvadoran government, a progressive government that emerged from the guerrilla struggle in 1998, is feeling the heat. The government, however, does not have the power to overturn the ruling of the conservative court, nor does it have the power to combat the powerful conservative lobby in the country's congress. Members of El Salvador’s leftist government fear easing the anti-abortion law, as it could affect the party negatively by alienating its voters and the Church. A change in the law, therefore, seems unlikely in face of omnipresent Catholic values throughout the country.

For decades, Latin American women have been fighting repressive anti-choice laws--laws that lead, every year, to the death of over 1,000 women and the hospitalization of over one million due to complications resulting from backstreet abortions, according to the World Health Organization. In El Salvador, one of the most prominent pro-choice organizations is La Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto (The Salvadoran Citizens' Coalition for the Decriminalization of Abortion), which has been combatting the abortion ban for years while exploring legal avenues to achieve the release of Las 17. Activist Sara Garcia stated, “We live in a misogynist, machista society … with prejudices about how a woman should behave and the punishment she should receive for not fulfilling those expectations.”

As the women of Latin America continue to struggle for autonomy over their bodies, freeing the Salvadoran 17 is a critical step in addressing this gross miscarriage of justice.

“We are here to speak for them, to call for their release. When there is an injustice, silence is complicity,” said Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of School of the Americas Watch and a decades-long advocate for human rights in Latin America. He was referring to the 17 women, known as Las 17, who are currently serving 30-year sentences in prison for having miscarriages in El Salvador.

Father Roy Bourgeois is one of the six human rights activists who staged a sit-in at the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington, DC on April 24, 2015 calling for the release of the women. Four of the protesters were arrested by the Secret Service.

“It was an honor to go to the embassy and be arrested in solidarity with the women in El Salvador” said Father Bourgeois. “Our greatest enemy in the United States is ignorance, so our job is to tell the stories.”

An overwhelming number of women in El Salvador--particularly poor, unmarried, uneducated women--face outrageous human rights violations as they are denied autonomy over their bodies. El Salvador has one of the strictest and most archaic anti-abortion laws in the world; it has a total ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies. Women who have miscarriages or stillborn births are confronted with suspicion from authorities. The legal system has an built-in “presumption of guilt,” making it virtually impossible for women to prove their innocence. Instead, these women are charged with manslaughter and imprisoned. All too often Salvadoran women are forced to live a life of overwhelming stigmatization and marginalization.

This past March, Father Roy Bourgeois led a delegation of human rights activists to El Salvador where he met with Salvadoran President Sánchez Cerén, human rights leaders, and five of the women in prison. Father Roy discovered a common theme among the women’s stories: they are all lower-class, poorly educated, single women who work domestic jobs for wealthier families. What led to the miscarriages? A lack of access to healthy food frequently leads to malnourishment among the impoverished in El Salvador. Tragically, that could have caused the miscarriages. As the women recounted their stories, they painted a grim picture: fainting as a result of blood loss, waking up in a hospital handcuffed to a bed, and ultimately being transferred to prison.

For the first year of their sentence, the women were forced to sleep on the floor of their cell like sardines, pressed next to each other. They were given only a gallon of water every two days for both drinking and bathing--water that is not drinkable by U.S. standards. Father Bourgeois was haunted by the stories of the women he met. When he returned to the United States, he couldn’t sleep. “I have never been more affected by a group of people than I was by this group of women,” he told CODEPINK.

Amnesty International put out a petition calling for the release of Las 17, a petition that received an incredible 700,000 signatures and counting. Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International's Americas Director, stated, “For almost two decades women in El Salvador have suffered the consequences of this outdated, draconian law and...now voices from the global community join their struggle to stop the injustice. This is now a deafening chorus of concern that cannot be ignored. President Cerén must heed this call.”

The Salvadoran government, a progressive government that emerged from the guerrilla struggle in 1998, is feeling the heat. The government, however, does not have the power to overturn the ruling of the conservative court, nor does it have the power to combat the powerful conservative lobby in the country's congress. Members of El Salvador’s leftist government fear easing the anti-abortion law, as it could affect the party negatively by alienating its voters and the Church. A change in the law, therefore, seems unlikely in face of omnipresent Catholic values throughout the country.

For decades, Latin American women have been fighting repressive anti-choice laws--laws that lead, every year, to the death of over 1,000 women and the hospitalization of over one million due to complications resulting from backstreet abortions, according to the World Health Organization. In El Salvador, one of the most prominent pro-choice organizations is La Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto (The Salvadoran Citizens' Coalition for the Decriminalization of Abortion), which has been combatting the abortion ban for years while exploring legal avenues to achieve the release of Las 17. Activist Sara Garcia stated, “We live in a misogynist, machista society … with prejudices about how a woman should behave and the punishment she should receive for not fulfilling those expectations.”

As the women of Latin America continue to struggle for autonomy over their bodies, freeing the Salvadoran 17 is a critical step in addressing this gross miscarriage of justice.

“Listen, he was America’s favorite dad,” said Barbara Bowman, who says she was raped as a 17-year-old actor. She made her case public in 2004, when testifying on behalf of Andrea Constand, who said she was also one of Cosby’s victims.

“I went into this thinking he was going to be my dad,” Bowman told the magazine. “To wake up half-dressed and raped by the man that said he was going to love me like a father? That’s pretty sick.

“It was hard for America to digest when this came out. And a lot of backlash and a lot denial and a lot of anger.”

On the magazine’s cover, the women are seen sitting on stools in black and white. In the photo essay, they are seen from the waist up, wearing white.

Over the course of a decade, public opinion has shifted from seeing Cosby’s accusers as money-hungry starlets to seeing them as a stunningly large group of alleged victims with remarkably similar alleged experiences.

“Listen, he was America’s favorite dad,” said Barbara Bowman, who says she was raped as a 17-year-old actor. She made her case public in 2004, when testifying on behalf of Andrea Constand, who said she was also one of Cosby’s victims.

“I went into this thinking he was going to be my dad,” Bowman told the magazine. “To wake up half-dressed and raped by the man that said he was going to love me like a father? That’s pretty sick.

“It was hard for America to digest when this came out. And a lot of backlash and a lot denial and a lot of anger.”

On the magazine’s cover, the women are seen sitting on stools in black and white. In the photo essay, they are seen from the waist up, wearing white.

Over the course of a decade, public opinion has shifted from seeing Cosby’s accusers as money-hungry starlets to seeing them as a stunningly large group of alleged victims with remarkably similar alleged experiences.

Portland, OR — A Portland police officer, Jeromie Palaoro, who has a history of misconduct, is on paid vacation, pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.

Roni Reid-James was in Portland earlier this month on a trip to visit her boyfriend. Reid-James called the police after she said her boyfriend attacked her at her mother’s house.

Palaoro was one of the officers who showed up to the call on July 4, to investigate the alleged assault by the boyfriend.

According to Reid-James, on July 5 at 3:30 am, Palaoro came to her hotel room, wearing street clothes, but still carrying a gun, to “talk to her about the alleged assault.”

When he came into her room, Reid-James says Palaoro pulled out the gun and set it on the table. He then took off all of his clothes and demanded that she perform sexual acts on him.

According to Reid-James, this sexual assault lasted for 7-hours.

As soon as he left, Reid-James reported the incident to the Portland police department who placed Palaoro on paid leave.

“The police bureau takes misconduct allegations very seriously,” police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson told KATU on Wednesday. “The investigation is active and ongoing both in the criminal side of things and in the internal investigation side. At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the district attorney’s office will be brought in and the case will be reviewed for possible criminal charges.”

Reid-James has since announced a lawsuit against the city.

According to KATU, Palaoro and the city were successfully sued just last year for entering a home without a warrant.

Tragically, officers being accused of raping women who call for help is not uncommon.

In March of last year, we reported on the story of officer Deon Nunlee who responded to a call from a woman who was just sexaully assaulted. When Nunlee showed up he took the woman upstairs and raped her.

Last month we reported on the horrible story of officer Micah Meurer responded to a call at a 22-year-old woman’s northwest Amarillo home. While he was there, the woman alleges that Meurer forced himself on her and raped her.

Portland, OR — A Portland police officer, Jeromie Palaoro, who has a history of misconduct, is on paid vacation, pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.

Roni Reid-James was in Portland earlier this month on a trip to visit her boyfriend. Reid-James called the police after she said her boyfriend attacked her at her mother’s house.

Palaoro was one of the officers who showed up to the call on July 4, to investigate the alleged assault by the boyfriend.

According to Reid-James, on July 5 at 3:30 am, Palaoro came to her hotel room, wearing street clothes, but still carrying a gun, to “talk to her about the alleged assault.”

When he came into her room, Reid-James says Palaoro pulled out the gun and set it on the table. He then took off all of his clothes and demanded that she perform sexual acts on him.

According to Reid-James, this sexual assault lasted for 7-hours.

As soon as he left, Reid-James reported the incident to the Portland police department who placed Palaoro on paid leave.

“The police bureau takes misconduct allegations very seriously,” police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson told KATU on Wednesday. “The investigation is active and ongoing both in the criminal side of things and in the internal investigation side. At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, the district attorney’s office will be brought in and the case will be reviewed for possible criminal charges.”

Reid-James has since announced a lawsuit against the city.

According to KATU, Palaoro and the city were successfully sued just last year for entering a home without a warrant.

Tragically, officers being accused of raping women who call for help is not uncommon.

In March of last year, we reported on the story of officer Deon Nunlee who responded to a call from a woman who was just sexaully assaulted. When Nunlee showed up he took the woman upstairs and raped her.

Last month we reported on the horrible story of officer Micah Meurer responded to a call at a 22-year-old woman’s northwest Amarillo home. While he was there, the woman alleges that Meurer forced himself on her and raped her.

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/gender/8-myths-fuel-assault-abortion-rights8 Myths That Fuel the Assault on Abortion Rightshttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/103498734/0/alternet_gender~Myths-That-Fuel-the-Assault-on-Abortion-Rights

No, abortion does not cause infertility or breast cancer, and women don't regret having abortions.

The ink is barely dry on the bill Scott Walker signed outlawing abortion for Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest, after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In Georgia, Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter is trying to introduce legislation that would halt federal funds for Planned Parenthood after a deceptive and misleading “sting” video went viral. In June, murder charges against Kenlissia Jones, who terminated her pregnancy using pills bought on the Internet, were finally dropped after much public outcry. And Paul Joseph Wieland, a local Missouri state representative and current holder of the Most Embarrassing Dad of the Year Award, is trying to get a court to block his adult daughters’ insurance from providing them with birth control. Adult daughters, you guys.

I’m leaving a lot out. But even with just a few examples plucked from hundreds, it’s clear that abortion foes are coming at women from all sides, actively doing everything they can to stymie reproductive justice using any means at their disposal. One third of American women will have abortions in their lifetime, and they currently face obstacles rivaled only by those in place during the pre-Roe v. Wade era. The campaign against abortion is riddled with both mis- and disinformation, or what in plainspeak might be referred to as “myths” and “lies.”

So let’s clear up a least a few of these. There are so many demonstrably false "facts” being generated by anti-choicers that a point-by-point rebuttal is impossible to compile into a single list. But we can tackle at least some of the more popular untruths. To that end, here is a list of the seven biggest myths about abortion.

1. Myth: Women regret their abortions.

Concern trolling is one of anti-choicers' favorite methods for attempting to shut down arguments in favor of reproductive rights. The fallacious suggestion is that women who have elective abortions suffer painful psychological consequences ranging from depression to anxiety to guilt to social isolation (aka the Won’t someone think of the women? argument). But in study after study, when women who have had abortions are allowed to speak for themselves (and really, they should know better than anyone), the opposite turns out to be true.

It’s extremely rare for women to feel post-abortion regret, and when they do, they still identify their choice as having been the right one. A 2000 study conducted by UC Santa Barbara found a full two years after having abortions, “72 percent of women were satisfied with their decision; 69 percent said they would have the abortion again; 72 percent reported more benefit than harm from their abortion; and 80 percent were not depressed.” Only 1 percent reported PTSD, compared with 11 percent of “women of the same age in the general population.” Another 2013 study found 90 percent of women reported feelings of relief following an abortion, while “those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger...and less relief and happiness.”

A three-year study from just this month with an assessment of factors including age, race, education and socioeconomic background found, across the board, “95 percent of participants reported abortion was the right decision, with the typical participant having a >99 percent chance of reporting the abortion decision was right for her.”

2. Myth: Abortions are unsafe.

The myth that abortion is a dangerous procedure proliferates in anti-choice circles, and is propagated by the same. It’s a fairly pernicious lie that is intended to make women considering an abortion literally fear for their lives. But it couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, a 2012 study assessing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Guttmacher Institute found that actually giving birth is far likelier to kill a woman than having an abortion. In the words of researchers, “risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion.” First-trimester abortions have a complication rate of less than .05 percent, making it one of the safest procedures available. Having a colonoscopy puts one's life more at risk than an abortion by a factor of 40 times. Time magazine noted last year that the CDC reported, “.67 deaths per 100,000 abortions” between 2003 and 2009, a year in which eight women died as a result of the procedure.

Certainly, we would all prefer it if there were zero deaths associated with terminating a pregnancy, but there seems to be bias in the reactions to those deaths — at least among anti-choice advocates — and fatalities resulting from other causes. To quote Time, “compare [those numbers] with fatal reactions to penicillin, which occur in 1 case per 50-100,000 courses. And what about Viagra? According to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, it has a death rate of 5 per 100,000 prescriptions. But you don’t find legislators calling for a ban on Viagra."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer at Oxford College in England, which examined the results of 53 different studies of roughly 83,000 women with breast cancer conducted in 16 countries, determined that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

This is, apparently, a belief that grew out of some now-dated ideas once rooted in truth. A 2010 Jezebel article investigating infertility and abortion found that procedural changes in how abortions are performed explain why the connection no longer exists. More specifically, while abortions up until the late 1960s used D&C (or dilation and curettage) to terminate pregnancies, by the early 1970s, vacuum aspiration became — and today remains — the predominate abortion method. The reduction in scarring and other complications that resulted from this shift helped eliminate infertility as a risk of abortion.

Ann Davis, associate professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center and consulting medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health told Jezebel, "There is no impact of repeat abortion on fertility." This is echoed in a Guttmacher Institute survey of scientific studies on the topic which found that “vacuum aspiration...poses virtually no long-term risks of future fertility-related problems such as infertility.”

5. Myth: Abortions are happening more than ever.

Women are having fewer legal abortions than they’ve had in 25 years. The number of legal abortions performed across the United States each year has been dwindling since the 1980s, and is currently down 12 percent from as recently as 2010. The Atlantic attributes this decline to a number of possible reasons: expanded access to birth control and sexual health resources and information; a precipitous drop in the teen pregnancy rates; millennial attitudes toward abortion (one study finds a surprising 42 percent against); and the astonishing number of recent anti-abortion measures put in place.

The only states with notable abortion increases were Michigan and Louisiana, where abortions increased by 18.5 percent and 12 percent, respectively. In recent years, both states have passed legislation limiting reproductive justice. The shift in numbers is likely due, in part, to an influx of women from neighboring states where abortion access has been even more severely limited. Though it’s incredibly difficult to accurately assess the number of illegal, or DIY, abortions happening as a result of women purchasing abortion-inducing drugs via the Internet, a New Republic investigation suggests that “the proliferation of online dispensers suggests a rising demand.” Which leads naturally to the next point.

6. Myth: Outlawing abortion means women will stop getting abortions.

According to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, “[e]stimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.” Because these abortions were primarily conducted in secrecy through underground channels, they were impossible to regulate, and the back alley abortion industry often employed methods that sound horrific to modern ears. (A gynecologist who practiced in the late 1940s and early ‘50s and often saw women hospitalized after experiencing complications from illegal abortions, paints a vivid and disturbing picture of procedures using coat hangers, “darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.”) The human cost of these abortions, undergone by desperate women, was nothing short of tragic.

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17 percent of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

The lesson seems obvious: women without access to safe, legal abortion will find a way, even if it means imperiling their own health. As Guttmacher notes:

Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is high, at 29 and 32 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and Latin America, respectively — regions where abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. In Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the abortion rate is 12 per 1,000.

It seems clear that stricter access to safe, legal abortion, as well as the continuing stigmatizing of the procedure, unsafe, illegal abortions — including those done at home thanks to the Internet — will continue to rise.

7. Myth: Abortion is racist.

It seems odd that conservatives express such outrage and concern about racism and its effects on fetuses of color, since they oppose pretty much every policy that might actually help African-American babies living outside the womb. In any case, much of this oft-repeated claim is rooted in the words of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who was possibly a racist and definitely into eugenics. (Read her words for yourself and decide. The point is moot in relation to where I’m going here.)

What is certain is that anti-choicers’ party lines about the state of abortion and women of color today are flat wrong. Neither Sanger’s first birth control clinics nor the majority of today’s clinics are located in predominately black neighborhoods; estimates actually place the number at around 9 percent. As Jezebel points out, African Americans comprise 15 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients, which approximates their percentage in the U.S. general population (and anyway, abortion accounts for only 3 percent of PP's services offered). It’s true that black women, followed by Hispanics/Latinas, have the highest rates of abortion (at nearly five times and double that of white women, respectively, across the socioeconomic board. When looking specifically at women living under the poverty level, Hispanic women have the highest rates of abortion).

But considering what we know about the relative wealth of black and Hispanic homes compared with white homes, the disparities fit into a more comprehensive picture. With less access to family planning, health insurance and financial resources in general (most women cite lack of money as the motivation for terminating their pregnancies), the result is a predictable and correlating higher number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Conservatives don’t talk about unwanted pregnancies in this way, because it would mean acknowledging structural racism.

And, really, none of us should hold our breaths waiting for that to happen.

No, abortion does not cause infertility or breast cancer, and women don't regret having abortions.

The ink is barely dry on the bill Scott Walker signed outlawing abortion for Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest, after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In Georgia, Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter is trying to introduce legislation that would halt federal funds for Planned Parenthood after a deceptive and misleading “sting” video went viral. In June, murder charges against Kenlissia Jones, who terminated her pregnancy using pills bought on the Internet, were finally dropped after much public outcry. And Paul Joseph Wieland, a local Missouri state representative and current holder of the Most Embarrassing Dad of the Year Award, is trying to get a court to block his adult daughters’ insurance from providing them with birth control. Adult daughters, you guys.

I’m leaving a lot out. But even with just a few examples plucked from hundreds, it’s clear that abortion foes are coming at women from all sides, actively doing everything they can to stymie reproductive justice using any means at their disposal. One third of American women will have abortions in their lifetime, and they currently face obstacles rivaled only by those in place during the pre-Roe v. Wade era. The campaign against abortion is riddled with both mis- and disinformation, or what in plainspeak might be referred to as “myths” and “lies.”

So let’s clear up a least a few of these. There are so many demonstrably false "facts” being generated by anti-choicers that a point-by-point rebuttal is impossible to compile into a single list. But we can tackle at least some of the more popular untruths. To that end, here is a list of the seven biggest myths about abortion.

1. Myth: Women regret their abortions.

Concern trolling is one of anti-choicers' favorite methods for attempting to shut down arguments in favor of reproductive rights. The fallacious suggestion is that women who have elective abortions suffer painful psychological consequences ranging from depression to anxiety to guilt to social isolation (aka the Won’t someone think of the women? argument). But in study after study, when women who have had abortions are allowed to speak for themselves (and really, they should know better than anyone), the opposite turns out to be true.

It’s extremely rare for women to feel post-abortion regret, and when they do, they still identify their choice as having been the right one. A 2000 study conducted by UC Santa Barbara found a full two years after having abortions, “72 percent of women were satisfied with their decision; 69 percent said they would have the abortion again; 72 percent reported more benefit than harm from their abortion; and 80 percent were not depressed.” Only 1 percent reported PTSD, compared with 11 percent of “women of the same age in the general population.” Another 2013 study found 90 percent of women reported feelings of relief following an abortion, while “those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger...and less relief and happiness.”

A three-year study from just this month with an assessment of factors including age, race, education and socioeconomic background found, across the board, “95 percent of participants reported abortion was the right decision, with the typical participant having a >99 percent chance of reporting the abortion decision was right for her.”

2. Myth: Abortions are unsafe.

The myth that abortion is a dangerous procedure proliferates in anti-choice circles, and is propagated by the same. It’s a fairly pernicious lie that is intended to make women considering an abortion literally fear for their lives. But it couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, a 2012 study assessing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Guttmacher Institute found that actually giving birth is far likelier to kill a woman than having an abortion. In the words of researchers, “risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion.” First-trimester abortions have a complication rate of less than .05 percent, making it one of the safest procedures available. Having a colonoscopy puts one's life more at risk than an abortion by a factor of 40 times. Time magazine noted last year that the CDC reported, “.67 deaths per 100,000 abortions” between 2003 and 2009, a year in which eight women died as a result of the procedure.

Certainly, we would all prefer it if there were zero deaths associated with terminating a pregnancy, but there seems to be bias in the reactions to those deaths — at least among anti-choice advocates — and fatalities resulting from other causes. To quote Time, “compare [those numbers] with fatal reactions to penicillin, which occur in 1 case per 50-100,000 courses. And what about Viagra? According to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, it has a death rate of 5 per 100,000 prescriptions. But you don’t find legislators calling for a ban on Viagra."

The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer at Oxford College in England, which examined the results of 53 different studies of roughly 83,000 women with breast cancer conducted in 16 countries, determined that “the totality of worldwide epidemiological evidence indicates that pregnancies ending as either spontaneous or induced abortions do not have adverse effects on women’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

This is, apparently, a belief that grew out of some now-dated ideas once rooted in truth. A 2010 Jezebel article investigating infertility and abortion found that procedural changes in how abortions are performed explain why the connection no longer exists. More specifically, while abortions up until the late 1960s used D&C (or dilation and curettage) to terminate pregnancies, by the early 1970s, vacuum aspiration became — and today remains — the predominate abortion method. The reduction in scarring and other complications that resulted from this shift helped eliminate infertility as a risk of abortion.

Ann Davis, associate professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center and consulting medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health told Jezebel, "There is no impact of repeat abortion on fertility." This is echoed in a Guttmacher Institute survey of scientific studies on the topic which found that “vacuum aspiration...poses virtually no long-term risks of future fertility-related problems such as infertility.”

5. Myth: Abortions are happening more than ever.

Women are having fewer legal abortions than they’ve had in 25 years. The number of legal abortions performed across the United States each year has been dwindling since the 1980s, and is currently down 12 percent from as recently as 2010. The Atlantic attributes this decline to a number of possible reasons: expanded access to birth control and sexual health resources and information; a precipitous drop in the teen pregnancy rates; millennial attitudes toward abortion (one study finds a surprising 42 percent against); and the astonishing number of recent anti-abortion measures put in place.

The only states with notable abortion increases were Michigan and Louisiana, where abortions increased by 18.5 percent and 12 percent, respectively. In recent years, both states have passed legislation limiting reproductive justice. The shift in numbers is likely due, in part, to an influx of women from neighboring states where abortion access has been even more severely limited. Though it’s incredibly difficult to accurately assess the number of illegal, or DIY, abortions happening as a result of women purchasing abortion-inducing drugs via the Internet, a New Republic investigation suggests that “the proliferation of online dispensers suggests a rising demand.” Which leads naturally to the next point.

6. Myth: Outlawing abortion means women will stop getting abortions.

According to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, “[e]stimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.” Because these abortions were primarily conducted in secrecy through underground channels, they were impossible to regulate, and the back alley abortion industry often employed methods that sound horrific to modern ears. (A gynecologist who practiced in the late 1940s and early ‘50s and often saw women hospitalized after experiencing complications from illegal abortions, paints a vivid and disturbing picture of procedures using coat hangers, “darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.”) The human cost of these abortions, undergone by desperate women, was nothing short of tragic.

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17 percent of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

The lesson seems obvious: women without access to safe, legal abortion will find a way, even if it means imperiling their own health. As Guttmacher notes:

Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is high, at 29 and 32 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and Latin America, respectively — regions where abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. In Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the abortion rate is 12 per 1,000.

It seems clear that stricter access to safe, legal abortion, as well as the continuing stigmatizing of the procedure, unsafe, illegal abortions — including those done at home thanks to the Internet — will continue to rise.

7. Myth: Abortion is racist.

It seems odd that conservatives express such outrage and concern about racism and its effects on fetuses of color, since they oppose pretty much every policy that might actually help African-American babies living outside the womb. In any case, much of this oft-repeated claim is rooted in the words of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who was possibly a racist and definitely into eugenics. (Read her words for yourself and decide. The point is moot in relation to where I’m going here.)

What is certain is that anti-choicers’ party lines about the state of abortion and women of color today are flat wrong. Neither Sanger’s first birth control clinics nor the majority of today’s clinics are located in predominately black neighborhoods; estimates actually place the number at around 9 percent. As Jezebel points out, African Americans comprise 15 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients, which approximates their percentage in the U.S. general population (and anyway, abortion accounts for only 3 percent of PP's services offered). It’s true that black women, followed by Hispanics/Latinas, have the highest rates of abortion (at nearly five times and double that of white women, respectively, across the socioeconomic board. When looking specifically at women living under the poverty level, Hispanic women have the highest rates of abortion).

But considering what we know about the relative wealth of black and Hispanic homes compared with white homes, the disparities fit into a more comprehensive picture. With less access to family planning, health insurance and financial resources in general (most women cite lack of money as the motivation for terminating their pregnancies), the result is a predictable and correlating higher number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Conservatives don’t talk about unwanted pregnancies in this way, because it would mean acknowledging structural racism.

And, really, none of us should hold our breaths waiting for that to happen.

Related Stories

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/gender/my-wedding-was-perfect-and-i-was-fat-hell-whole-timeMy Wedding Was Perfect – and I Was Fat as Hell the Whole Time http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/103096494/0/alternet_gender~My-Wedding-Was-Perfect-%e2%80%93-and-I-Was-Fat-as-Hell-the-Whole-Time

As a fat woman, you are told to disguise, shrink or flatter your body. But I wasn’t going to hide at my wedding.

Aham and I got engaged on my birthday. He took me to dinner, suggested a “quick nightcap” at our neighbourhood bar, and then, surprise! Everyone was there – our friends, our families, the kids, four random people who were just trying to get a damn drink on a Sunday night without being accidental set dressing in somebody else’s raucous public proposal (sorry, dudes). I was so happy. He took my hand and led me to the back; there was a paper banner that said my name (the bartender made it – we go there a lot); there was a live string duet. I was confused. Why was there a sombre cello at my birthday party? Why was my boyfriend doing his Intense Face? Wait, it’s almost 10pm on a school night and we’re at a bar – why ARE the kids here? Then it all happened at once: the knee, the ring, the speech, the question, the tears. All the hits. It was a full-blown grand gesture.

Months later, I asked him why he did it that way – such a big spectacle, such an event, not precisely our style – and I expected something cliched but sweet, like, “I wanted to make sure our community was a part of our marriage,” or, “I wanted everyone to know how much I love you.” Instead, his response cracked me up: “One time when you were drunk you told me, ‘If you ever propose to me, don’t do it in the bullshit way that dudes usually treat fat girls. Like it’s a secret, or you’re just trying to keep me from leaving you. Thin girls get public proposals, like those dudes are winning a fucking prize. Fat chicks deserve that, too.’” I probably would have finessed it a bit if I’d been sober, but way to lean in, bossy, drunk past-Lindy!

It’s not that I’d ever particularly yearned for a grand gesture – the relationship I cherish lives in our tiny private moments (and, as I’d later discover at my bridal shower, I’m surprisingly uncomfortable being the object of public sincerity) – but the older I get and the longer I live in a fat body, the harder it is to depoliticise even simple acts. A public proposal to a publicly valued body might be personally significant, but culturally it shifts nothing. A public proposal to a publicly reviled body is a political statement.

I’ve dated men who relished me in private but refused to be seen with me on the street, or who told me, explicitly, that we had no serious future because they were afraid their friends would laugh at them. I’ve been eagerly approached by men who clearly saw me as nothing but an arousingly taboo body type, which I find equally demoralising (other fat people don’t mind, I know – that’s cool, too). I just wanted to be a person, and, if I was lucky, to fall in love with a person – neither in spite of my body nor because of it. Once I finally did, I wanted to crystallise that, make it solid, and broadcast it where younger versions of myself could find it.

“I grew up assuming that I would never get married,” I wrote back in November, in a piece called Why I can’t wait to be a fat bride, “because marriage was for thin women, the kind of women who deserved to be collected. How could I be a bride when I was already what men most feared their wives would become? I was the mise en place for a midlife crisis. I was the Ghost of Adultery Future. At least, that’s what I’d been taught. And that’s why I can’t goddamn wait to be a fat bride.”

And: “When I think back on my teenage self, what I really needed to hear wasn’t that someone might love me one day if I lost enough weight to qualify as human – it was that I was worthy of love now, just as I was. So I’ll be fat on my wedding day. Because being fat and happy and in love in public is still a radical act.”

We got married a week ago at my favourite place – a log cabin that my parents bought when I was a few years old and have painstakingly fixed up over the intervening 30 years.

My dad didn’t make it to my wedding, but even though I believed that death is a hard return, I can always feel him at the cabin. I walked down the aisle to a recording of him playing Someone to Watch Over Me on the piano; my fiance wore a blue plaid suit; a bald eagle flapped over the ceremony; the food was transcendent; my sister’s fondant camellias slid off the cake; someone spilled red wine on one of the beds; I got my period; it poured after a month of uninterrupted sunshine, then abruptly stopped just as we emerged from the tent to dance; a friend of mine got confused about the route to the bathroom and walked into my mom’s bedroom naked. Oh, and Aham’s 100-year-old great-grandmother had a tiny stroke on the way to the wedding, went to the hospital, got better, AND STILL CAME AND PARTIED. It was a gorgeous, chaotic, loving, perfect day.

And I was fat as hell the whole time.

As a fat woman, if you ask for help or guidance on almost any topic, what you inevitably hear is some version of “Take up less space.” Diminish yourself. Feeling sick? Make your body smaller. Can’t find love? Make your body smaller. Undervalued at work? Make your body smaller. Can’t make your body smaller? Hide your body. Can’t hide your body? “Flatter” your body (ie make it look smaller). Choose an empire waist. Cover your arms. Your body is too unattractive. Your body is too expensive. Your body is too unruly. We want to see less of you, or preferably none at all.

“The first thing that a plus-size wedding dress must be in the eyes of the wedding-dress industry is ‘flattering’,” says my friend and wedding planner Alithea O’Dell. “Their primary concern is to hide your body, which is just absurd when you think about how much inspiration and thought and talent goes into designing straight-sized dresses. Those dresses can be many things – a show stopper, glamorous, beautiful, delicate, sexy – before they are ‘flattering’.”

Well, I don’t hide any more in my everyday life, and I definitely wasn’t going to hide at my wedding.

I skipped the bridal boutiques altogether. My friend, artist and designer Mark Mitchell, and I conceived of the most beautiful dress we could imagine, which, according to the old orthodoxies, just happened to be the least “flattering” dress possible for a fat chick: a strapless, skin-tight mermaid gown exploding with silk flowers. The flowers – my god, the wisteria! – added extra bulk in areas I’m supposed to try and “slim”. The silhouette accentuated my stomach instead of camouflaging it. My arms looked like what they are – strong, and big. I didn’t wear Spanx. I was beautiful.

But “beauty” is a fraught concept. There’s an awkward three-way tension between wedding culture and feminism and fat acceptance – because of what “acceptance” demands of women in our culture, a lot of fat activism takes the form of fat women trying to “prove” that they can wear the trappings of male fantasy and traditional gender roles just as well as thin women. Fat women can be pretty. Fat women can get married. Fat women can “get” conventionally attractive husbands. But how is that constructive? Male approval isn’t where my self-worth comes from – and that realisation was a huge part of what made my current relationship healthy and fulfilling. Respectability politics might boost mainstream attitudes toward fat people in the short-term, but what does it do for women in general in the long-term? How can I simultaneously fight for women to be free of patriarchal standards and for fat women to be allowed to participate in those standards?

My short answer is that I am far more interested in expanding the realm of self-expression for fat people than in adding to the already extensive list of what we “can” and “can’t” wear. But I also asked Alithea how she reconciles that tension as a wedding planner, a feminist, and a fat woman. “I agree,” she said, “that sometimes women will still internalise these patriarchal ideas we are taught about how we MUST get married, we MUST be as beautiful as possible, we MUST be loved by a cis man, and if we don’t, we aren’t truly happy or successful. Obviously, this is bullshit. Of course a partner brings us happiness in so many ways that others can’t, but there is a fundamental structure of love, and happiness, and true peace most of us must find in ourselves before we find happiness with a partner, otherwise it’s like a beautiful house built on a shitty foundation. The strongest conflict I navigate is the one between feminism and the capitalism that is so deeply interwoven into weddings. Capitalism is not feminist – it is built on preying on cheap labour, by literally enslaving people to manufacture things so other people get rich. The wedding industrial complex has convinced us that the only ‘good’ weddings are the weddings that cost the most. But I see weddings as a tradition, a ceremony, and those things are important in all cultures. So I work with my clients to strip away the gross stuff that doesn’t feel right, the stuff they’re told they ‘need’, and rebuild a wedding into a ceremony and a party that is reflective of their values, something that they are proud of and feels like an honest celebration of their love.”

Choose your rituals, but make them yours. If you want to look like a flower market ate fat Betty Draper and then barfed her up in the middle of a haunted forest (YEEEESSS!), great choice. If you want to get married to a burrito while wearing a barrel with suspenders, I’m cool with it. If you think the very concept of marriage is hot garbage, that’s legit. But regardless, remember that you absolutely do not have to “fix” your body, chase after “flattering”, be somebody’s dark secret, or beg for permission to be happy.

And to my 16-year-old self, if you’re reading this, listen to Alithea; she is wise: “When I enter into a relationship, I am not filling a hole that society has dug out of my soul, telling me that I am fat, and because I am fat I am ugly, and because I am ugly I am unlovable. I am there, in their bed and in their life, for the purest of reasons, not because I am insecure and need the external validation that a patriarchal society has taught us to seek. I am not seeking validation from a partner, I am seeking partnership in that partner.”

I have never in my life been fatter than I was on my wedding day, I have never shown my body in such an uncompromising way, and I have never felt more at home in that body. I was fully myself, and I was happy. We are happy. This life is yours, fat girls. Eat it up.

As a fat woman, you are told to disguise, shrink or flatter your body. But I wasn’t going to hide at my wedding.

Aham and I got engaged on my birthday. He took me to dinner, suggested a “quick nightcap” at our neighbourhood bar, and then, surprise! Everyone was there – our friends, our families, the kids, four random people who were just trying to get a damn drink on a Sunday night without being accidental set dressing in somebody else’s raucous public proposal (sorry, dudes). I was so happy. He took my hand and led me to the back; there was a paper banner that said my name (the bartender made it – we go there a lot); there was a live string duet. I was confused. Why was there a sombre cello at my birthday party? Why was my boyfriend doing his Intense Face? Wait, it’s almost 10pm on a school night and we’re at a bar – why ARE the kids here? Then it all happened at once: the knee, the ring, the speech, the question, the tears. All the hits. It was a full-blown grand gesture.

Months later, I asked him why he did it that way – such a big spectacle, such an event, not precisely our style – and I expected something cliched but sweet, like, “I wanted to make sure our community was a part of our marriage,” or, “I wanted everyone to know how much I love you.” Instead, his response cracked me up: “One time when you were drunk you told me, ‘If you ever propose to me, don’t do it in the bullshit way that dudes usually treat fat girls. Like it’s a secret, or you’re just trying to keep me from leaving you. Thin girls get public proposals, like those dudes are winning a fucking prize. Fat chicks deserve that, too.’” I probably would have finessed it a bit if I’d been sober, but way to lean in, bossy, drunk past-Lindy!

It’s not that I’d ever particularly yearned for a grand gesture – the relationship I cherish lives in our tiny private moments (and, as I’d later discover at my bridal shower, I’m surprisingly uncomfortable being the object of public sincerity) – but the older I get and the longer I live in a fat body, the harder it is to depoliticise even simple acts. A public proposal to a publicly valued body might be personally significant, but culturally it shifts nothing. A public proposal to a publicly reviled body is a political statement.

I’ve dated men who relished me in private but refused to be seen with me on the street, or who told me, explicitly, that we had no serious future because they were afraid their friends would laugh at them. I’ve been eagerly approached by men who clearly saw me as nothing but an arousingly taboo body type, which I find equally demoralising (other fat people don’t mind, I know – that’s cool, too). I just wanted to be a person, and, if I was lucky, to fall in love with a person – neither in spite of my body nor because of it. Once I finally did, I wanted to crystallise that, make it solid, and broadcast it where younger versions of myself could find it.

“I grew up assuming that I would never get married,” I wrote back in November, in a piece called Why I can’t wait to be a fat bride, “because marriage was for thin women, the kind of women who deserved to be collected. How could I be a bride when I was already what men most feared their wives would become? I was the mise en place for a midlife crisis. I was the Ghost of Adultery Future. At least, that’s what I’d been taught. And that’s why I can’t goddamn wait to be a fat bride.”

And: “When I think back on my teenage self, what I really needed to hear wasn’t that someone might love me one day if I lost enough weight to qualify as human – it was that I was worthy of love now, just as I was. So I’ll be fat on my wedding day. Because being fat and happy and in love in public is still a radical act.”

We got married a week ago at my favourite place – a log cabin that my parents bought when I was a few years old and have painstakingly fixed up over the intervening 30 years.

My dad didn’t make it to my wedding, but even though I believed that death is a hard return, I can always feel him at the cabin. I walked down the aisle to a recording of him playing Someone to Watch Over Me on the piano; my fiance wore a blue plaid suit; a bald eagle flapped over the ceremony; the food was transcendent; my sister’s fondant camellias slid off the cake; someone spilled red wine on one of the beds; I got my period; it poured after a month of uninterrupted sunshine, then abruptly stopped just as we emerged from the tent to dance; a friend of mine got confused about the route to the bathroom and walked into my mom’s bedroom naked. Oh, and Aham’s 100-year-old great-grandmother had a tiny stroke on the way to the wedding, went to the hospital, got better, AND STILL CAME AND PARTIED. It was a gorgeous, chaotic, loving, perfect day.

And I was fat as hell the whole time.

As a fat woman, if you ask for help or guidance on almost any topic, what you inevitably hear is some version of “Take up less space.” Diminish yourself. Feeling sick? Make your body smaller. Can’t find love? Make your body smaller. Undervalued at work? Make your body smaller. Can’t make your body smaller? Hide your body. Can’t hide your body? “Flatter” your body (ie make it look smaller). Choose an empire waist. Cover your arms. Your body is too unattractive. Your body is too expensive. Your body is too unruly. We want to see less of you, or preferably none at all.

“The first thing that a plus-size wedding dress must be in the eyes of the wedding-dress industry is ‘flattering’,” says my friend and wedding planner Alithea O’Dell. “Their primary concern is to hide your body, which is just absurd when you think about how much inspiration and thought and talent goes into designing straight-sized dresses. Those dresses can be many things – a show stopper, glamorous, beautiful, delicate, sexy – before they are ‘flattering’.”

Well, I don’t hide any more in my everyday life, and I definitely wasn’t going to hide at my wedding.

I skipped the bridal boutiques altogether. My friend, artist and designer Mark Mitchell, and I conceived of the most beautiful dress we could imagine, which, according to the old orthodoxies, just happened to be the least “flattering” dress possible for a fat chick: a strapless, skin-tight mermaid gown exploding with silk flowers. The flowers – my god, the wisteria! – added extra bulk in areas I’m supposed to try and “slim”. The silhouette accentuated my stomach instead of camouflaging it. My arms looked like what they are – strong, and big. I didn’t wear Spanx. I was beautiful.

But “beauty” is a fraught concept. There’s an awkward three-way tension between wedding culture and feminism and fat acceptance – because of what “acceptance” demands of women in our culture, a lot of fat activism takes the form of fat women trying to “prove” that they can wear the trappings of male fantasy and traditional gender roles just as well as thin women. Fat women can be pretty. Fat women can get married. Fat women can “get” conventionally attractive husbands. But how is that constructive? Male approval isn’t where my self-worth comes from – and that realisation was a huge part of what made my current relationship healthy and fulfilling. Respectability politics might boost mainstream attitudes toward fat people in the short-term, but what does it do for women in general in the long-term? How can I simultaneously fight for women to be free of patriarchal standards and for fat women to be allowed to participate in those standards?

My short answer is that I am far more interested in expanding the realm of self-expression for fat people than in adding to the already extensive list of what we “can” and “can’t” wear. But I also asked Alithea how she reconciles that tension as a wedding planner, a feminist, and a fat woman. “I agree,” she said, “that sometimes women will still internalise these patriarchal ideas we are taught about how we MUST get married, we MUST be as beautiful as possible, we MUST be loved by a cis man, and if we don’t, we aren’t truly happy or successful. Obviously, this is bullshit. Of course a partner brings us happiness in so many ways that others can’t, but there is a fundamental structure of love, and happiness, and true peace most of us must find in ourselves before we find happiness with a partner, otherwise it’s like a beautiful house built on a shitty foundation. The strongest conflict I navigate is the one between feminism and the capitalism that is so deeply interwoven into weddings. Capitalism is not feminist – it is built on preying on cheap labour, by literally enslaving people to manufacture things so other people get rich. The wedding industrial complex has convinced us that the only ‘good’ weddings are the weddings that cost the most. But I see weddings as a tradition, a ceremony, and those things are important in all cultures. So I work with my clients to strip away the gross stuff that doesn’t feel right, the stuff they’re told they ‘need’, and rebuild a wedding into a ceremony and a party that is reflective of their values, something that they are proud of and feels like an honest celebration of their love.”

Choose your rituals, but make them yours. If you want to look like a flower market ate fat Betty Draper and then barfed her up in the middle of a haunted forest (YEEEESSS!), great choice. If you want to get married to a burrito while wearing a barrel with suspenders, I’m cool with it. If you think the very concept of marriage is hot garbage, that’s legit. But regardless, remember that you absolutely do not have to “fix” your body, chase after “flattering”, be somebody’s dark secret, or beg for permission to be happy.

And to my 16-year-old self, if you’re reading this, listen to Alithea; she is wise: “When I enter into a relationship, I am not filling a hole that society has dug out of my soul, telling me that I am fat, and because I am fat I am ugly, and because I am ugly I am unlovable. I am there, in their bed and in their life, for the purest of reasons, not because I am insecure and need the external validation that a patriarchal society has taught us to seek. I am not seeking validation from a partner, I am seeking partnership in that partner.”

I have never in my life been fatter than I was on my wedding day, I have never shown my body in such an uncompromising way, and I have never felt more at home in that body. I was fully myself, and I was happy. We are happy. This life is yours, fat girls. Eat it up.

Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded a PPFA official 'haggling over' prices for fetal tissue donations.

In its latest deceptively edited video, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official "haggling" over the price of "baby parts" and agreeing to change abortion methods to aid the fetal tissue collection process. But the full video and transcript show the official confirming that any change in procedure is done pursuant to medical advice without additional risk to the patient, and that the compensation being discussed was about legal reimbursement for costs associated with tissue donation.

ANTI-CHOICE GROUP RELEASED ANOTHER DECEPTIVELY EDITED VIDEO PURPORTING TO SHOW PLANNED PARENTHOOD OFFICIAL "HAGGLING OVER PAYMENTS" FOR "BABY PARTS"

Center For Medical Progress:"Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods." In a video released on July 21, the Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded PPFA Medical Directors' Council President Mary Gatter "haggling over" prices for fetal tissue donations and offering to change techniques "to get more intact body parts." According to the organization's press release:

By the lunch's end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, "Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini."

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: "I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen."

Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: "To me, that's kind of a specious little argument." Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

The video, like last week's featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP's nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, "Human Capital." [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Edited Video: Gatter Admitted "Planned Parenthood Received Payment In Spite Of Incurring No Costs." The Center for Medical Progress' press release claims that the deceptively cut video shows Gatter admitted that Planned Parenthood receives payment for fetal tissue donation "in spite of incurring no costs," pointing to the 8-minute long video where Gatter saying the process "was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this":

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: "It was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this." She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: "Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can't find anything, right?" [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Full Video Shows Gatter Was Discussing Process Of Obtaining Consent And Sorting Donations. The Center for Medical Progress' transcript of the full-video reveals that when Gatter said "It was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this," she was discussing the process of working with a company to obtain consent for the donations and decide which donations could be used, citing how it was "logistically ... very easy" because a representative was there to help make the decision (emphasis added):

GATTER: So Novogenix was our partner in PPLA and they would send us- you know, big volume. They would send their staff to the site, and our staff, our medical assistants were used to discussing with the patients, do you want to consent? And they would say yes or no, and a lot of them said yes. Maybe it wasn't entirely sixty, and then once the patients have signed the consent form, the patients did not receive digoxin, and Heather would look at the tissue- that's probably Laura- she would take the pieces that she wanted and it worked out well for everyone. She was unobtrusive, she was helpful, she did all that kind of stuff.

LAUREL [Gatter's Colleague]: Oh, my apologies. Hi.

GATTER: So we just started the conversation.

GATTER: They're a start up, they've have been about a year in business. They are for profit company connecting researchers with people willing to donate tissue. We just started talking- they were a little bit concerned about the fact that they're in Long Beach, but they understand that every California affiliate is paired up in a tissue donation program, except for Pasadena. Volume, that you for getting it to me is eight hundred a year. We were just starting to talk about the process worked with Novogenix down in Los Angeles when I was there. To back up a little bit, PPFA, our parent body, is on board with tissue donation, but we have to ask for a waiver to do it, and we have to lay out for them what our program's gonna be like. And it's absolutely a requirement that we use only the official, federal government form for tissue donation, that we don't modify it in any way. Novogenix was working on a concept that California has slightly different requirements, and so it's different, and so they wanted to very reasonably insert the California requirements into the consent form, the federal form, PPFA said no, you have to have two separate forms, so it just added to the burden of consent issues. But I was also explaining to them, back when I was in Los Angeles maybe sixty to seventy percent of people said yes to tissue donation.

So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don't know what you're used to doing, how you're used to doing compensation. Patients don't care what we do, of course, but- [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Video Shows Gattner Was Talking About "Costs Associated With The Use Of Our Space" -- Compensation For Which Is Legal According To Federal Law. Even in the 8-minute video, Gattner's full comments reveal that the compensation being discussed was to offset clinic costs such as "costs associated with the use of our space," a legal industry standard for fetal tissue donation.

GATTER: And we don't want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and all that kind of stuff.

Edited Video:Gatter "Suggests Modifying Abortion Procedure To Get More Intact Fetuses." According to CMP's press release, the 8-minute version of its video shows Gatter "suggest[ing] modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses.":

BUYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):

ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Abortion Methods Described By Gatter Are The Most Common Methods Of Abortion During First Twelve Weeks Of Pregnancy. The methods of abortion Gattner identified as most common at her clinic are two variations of what is known as "aspiration" abortion, one variation of which uses a manual pump. According to women's health group Our Bodies Ourselves, the procedure is the most common method "during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy" and is "a safe medical procedure" with small risk of complications:

Although the number of women in the United States choosing medication abortion (abortion with pills) is increasing each year, aspiration abortion (also called surgical or suction abortion) is the currently the most common method used for abortions during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. In 2010, about 72% of all first trimester abortions were aspiration abortions.

Some of the reasons women choose aspiration abortion over medication abortion are easier access and higher success rates. In addition, a surgical abortion is shorter and completed in a predictable period and fewer office visits are needed.

In aspiration abortion, the uterine contents are removed by suction (aspiration), which is applied through a cannula, a thin tube that is inserted into the uterus and connected to a source of suction, either an electric pump or a handheld syringe. (If no electric pump is used, the abortion is a manual vacuum aspiration, or MVA.)

SAFETY

Aspiration abortion is a safe medical procedure. Fewer than 1 in 200 women who have an aspiration abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy experience a complication that requires hospitalization. The risk of death from abortion is always lower than the risk of death involved in carrying a pregnancy to term. [Our Bodies Ourselves, 4/2/15]

Association Of Reproductive Health Professionals: "Overall Effectiveness, Patient Satisfaction, And Complication Rates Are Comparable" For Both Types Of Aspiration Abortion. In a 2008 reference guide for clinicians, ARHP confirmed that both electric or manual vacuum aspiration "are safe and can easily be performed." Additionally, "in patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, [manual vacuum aspiration] results in less patient perception of pain":

Vacuum uterine aspiration allows for the simple evacuation of the uterus through a cannula attached to either an electric or manual vacuum source. Both methods of evacuation are safe and can easily be performed in any setting, including an office, emergency room, or the operating room. When conducted in the outpatient setting rather than operating room, vacuum uterine aspiration can result in substantial cost savings and significantly reduce patient waiting periods for services.

[...]

Overall effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and complication rates are comparable for EVA and MVA. MVA is highly portable, virtually silent, reusable, and available at a low cost. In patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, MVA results in less patient perception of pain as compared to EVA, but takes longer to complete. Additionally, pregnancy tissue may be easier to identify after MVA than EVA. Clinicians also report high satisfaction in the use of MVA. [Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, "Manual Vacuum Aspiration," June 2008]

Federal Statute 42 U.S.C. 289g-1: The "Research On Transplantation Of Fetal Tissue" Law Does Not Ban Alterations In Medical Procedure. In its explanation that "federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection," the CMP press release incompletely described the statute governing fetal tissue donation. In fact, 42 U.S.C. 289g-1 only regulates alterations to the procedure that are done "solely" for obtaining the tissue; alterations for other reasons are permitted:

In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that--

(A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion--

(i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research;

(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue [42 U.S.C. 289g-1, Accessed 7/21/15]

Planned Parenthood Statement: Fetal Donations Were Done "Under The Highest Ethical And Legal Standards," And Provide Them "No Financial Benefit." In a July 17 statement responding to the first video, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood's Vice President of Communications, explained that the organization's clinics "help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research" with "the highest ethical and legal standards." Ferrero noted that the organization received "no financial benefit" from the arrangement aside from reimbursement of "actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue" -- consistent with industry standards:

"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

"A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case." [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 7/14/15]

PAYMENT FOR FETAL TISSUE MAY BE ACCEPTED ONLY TO OFFSET "REASONABLE EXPENSES"

Federal Law Allows For Donations Of Fetal Tissue With Consent. Federal law regarding the use of human fetal tissue does not prohibit the use of donated materials. [Title 42 U.S. Code § 289g-2, Accessed 7/14/15]

Health And Human Services Independent Review Board: Providers May Accept Payment "For Reasonable Expenses" With "Informed Consent." The set of standards outlined by the Health And Human Services Independent Review Board guidebook, the industry standard for medical research, explains that payment for fetal tissue may be obtained "for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues" (emphasis added):

Prohibiting Payments and Other Inducements

· Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.

Informed Consent

· Potential recipients of such tissues, as well as research and health care participants, should be properly informed about the source of the tissues in question.

· The decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of the fetal tissue and any request for such consent that might be required for that use.

· Fetal tissue from induced abortions should not be used in medical research without the prior consent of the pregnant woman. Her decision to donate fetal remains is sufficient for the use of tissue, unless the father objects (except in cases of incest or rape).

· Consent should be obtained in compliance with state law and with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. [Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Accessed 7/14/15]

PREVIOUS VIDEO FROM CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS WAS DECEPTIVELY EDITED

First Full Video Released By Group Revealed That Crucial Portions Were Edited Out. This video is the second in a series released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The first was a July 14 video, which also relied on deceptive edits to falsely claim Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola had discussed how the organization "sells the body parts of aborted fetuses." The nearly nine-minute video and an accompanying press release also claimed that Planned Parenthood was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 289g-2, a federal law regulating the use and sale of fetal tissue. Yet the entire, unedited, nearly three-hour version of the first video that CMP released contains several sections that were edited out of the shorter video, which contradict the group's assertions. For example, as the unedited transcript shows, Dr. Nucatola says, "Nobody should be 'selling' tissue," and she repeatedly referred to "tissue donation" during the conversation. The edited video also jumps ahead nearly eight minutes in the middle of a discussion about money in an attempt to falsely frame Nucatola's comments as having to do with the sale price of tissue, but the unedited version reveals that she was actually discussing reimbursement costs for legal donation during those missing minutes. [Media Matters for America, 7/14/15]

THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS HAS ALMOST NO INTERNET FOOTPRINT

Center For Medical Progress Describes Itself As A Non-Profit "Group Of Citizen Journalists." According to the organization's website description of itself:

The Center for Medical Progress is a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings. We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them.

The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]

Center For Medical Progress Has A Small And Recent Internet Footprint. CMP's presence online was nearly non-existent until several weeks ago. The group's Facebook page shows no posts before May 24 of this year and the organization didn't join Twitter until May 30. No videos other than the deceptively edited Planned Parenthood clips appear on the group's YouTube site. The website address listed on their Facebook page leads to a Postal Annex in Irvine, CA instead of real organization. [Facebook.com, accessed 7/15/15; Twitter.com, accessed 7/15/15, YouTube.com, accessed 7/15/15; Yelp.com, accessed 7/15/15]

CMP'S FOUNDER, DAVID DALEIDEN, HAS A LONG HISTORY WITH DISCREDITED CONSERVATIVE GROUPS

Center For Medical Progress: Daleiden Is "Founder" And Project Lead For The "Human Capital" Investigation. According to the Center for Medical Progress' website, Daleiden not only spearheaded the "Human Capital" investigation that produced the deceptively edited video attacking Planned Parenthood, he also founded the organization. Daleiden's bio also describes his past work at conservative news outlet The Weekly Standard:

David Daleiden is a citizen journalist with nearly a decade of experience in conducting investigative research on the abortion industry. In 2013, David started The Center for Medical Progressas a vehicle through which to pursue sophisticated, in-depth, and scintillating investigative journalism projects pertaining to contemporary bioethical issues.

As Project Lead at CMP, David recently completed the organization's first long-term project, the 30-month-long "Human Capital" investigation documenting Planned Parenthood's illegal sale of body parts from aborted fetuses. Prior to CMP, David worked as Director of Research for a national new media education and advocacy organization. David is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College with a B.A. in Government, and his writing has been published in The Weekly Standard and The Human Life Review. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]

Life Legal Defense Fund Credits Daleiden As Director Of CMP's Project. In a press release discussing CMP's first video, the Life Legal Defense Fund credited David Daleiden as the director of the "Human Capital" project behind the deceptively edited video, thanking him specifically "for bringing these shocking practices to light":

The "Human Capital" project was a nearly 3-year-long undertaking produced by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Directed by CMP Project Lead David Daleiden, the effort secured audio and video recordings of Planned Parenthood administrators and abortionists casually agreeing to sell freshly-extracted parts from their abortions. CMP's devastating expose of PP's trade in body parts may be seen at centerformedicalprogress.org.

[...]

Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: "The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project." [Christian News Wire, 7/14/15]

Daleiden Was Formerly The Director of Research At Live Action. In 2009, Daleiden was the director of research for the discredited anti-abortion group Live Action, which has been criticized before for deceptively editing undercover footage of abortion clinics in an attempt to smear Planned Parenthood. According to Daleiden's bio from the time on Live Action's website, he assumed his role in 2008 and was later banned from Pomona College's campus after "videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape":

David Daleiden has a passion for promoting the culture of life in communities and campuses across the country. He is proud to be a part of the Live Action team.

A native of the Sacramento area, David first became involved with the pro-life movement at age 15, working with local college pro-life groups and learning from veteran activists in his community. He founded a pro-life club at his high school, helped bring pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf to his hometown, and has participated in the "Genocide Awareness Project" to show abortion images to the public. David points to such images as the original impetus for his work in the pro-life movement.

During high school, David was also heavily involved in speech and debate. He first met Lila Rose in the Junior State of America (JSA) organization, and over the years became more and more involved in Live Action.

In 2007, David began his studies at Claremont McKenna College (CMC) in Claremont, California. David currently runs a Live Action chapter in Claremont, which routinely conducts sidewalk counseling efforts, community education, and campus activism.

David took on his current role as Director of Research for Live Action in 2008 during the early stages of the Mona Lisa Project. In March 2009, David and a fellow student were banned from sister campus Pomona College after videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape. The ban was soon lifted after intense public scrutiny. [Live Action, 8/17/09; Media Matters for America, 2/4/11; Media Matters for America, 5/31/12]

Snopes: Daleiden Is ReportedlyFriends WithConservative Figure Best Known For "Severely Edited" Videos. A Snopes.com takedown of CMP's video noted that Daleiden is reportedly a friend of James O'Keefe -- another conservative figure notrious for using "severely edited" videos to target liberal organizations:

An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the "leader" of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden's online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:

James O'Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden's. O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They've brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.

O'Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced "egregiously misleading" and "severely edited" videos targeting agencies such as ACORN." [Snopes.com, 7/14/15]

A CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS BOARD MEMBER CALLED MURDER OF ABORTION DOCTOR "JUSTIFIED"

Newman Called Murder Of Abortion Clinic Doctor A "Justifiable Defensive Action." In a 2003 press release, Newman defended Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection for murdering abortion doctor John Britton in Pensacola, FL. Newman argued that Hill should have been able to defend himself by classifying the murder as justifiable.

Today's scheduled execution of Paul Hill is not justice, but is another example of the judicial tyranny that is gripping our nation. A Florida judge denied Rev. Hill his right to present a defense that claimed that the killing of the abortionist was necessary to save the lives of the pre-born babies that were scheduled to be killed by abortion that day. Our system of justice is based upon 'innocent until proven guilty,' but in Rev. Hill's case, there was no justice because the court prevented him from presenting the legal defense that his conduct was justifiable defensive action.

"There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law. Paul Hill should have been given the opportunity to defend himself with the defense of his choosing in a court of law. [Operation Rescue West press release, 9/3/03]

Newman will pick through clinic workers' trash to figure out where they do business; he'll trail them at a distance to learn their routines. His goal is not just to make their lives uncomfortable. He wants to unsettle and disgust their friends and associates, so their hairstylists and their pharmacists, even their neighbors, make it clear they're not welcome in Wichita. [Los Angeles Times, 2/17/04]

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS IS ALSO CONNECTED TO A DISREPUTABLE ANTI-CHOICE ORGANIZATION

Vox: Center For Medical Progress "Appears To Be Associated" With Life Legal Defense Foundation. In a July 14 post detailing the controversy around the deceptively edited video released by CMP, Vox noted that the Life Legal Defense Foundation "appears to be associated with" the organization, linking to a series of materials on Life Legal's website from the Center For Medical Progress. [Vox, 7/14/15]

Life Legal Defense Foundation Has Been With The Center For Medical Progress "From The Very Start." In a press release discussing CMP's video, the Life Legal Defense Fund said it had been working with CMP "from the very start":

Life Legal Defense Foundation was finally able today to reveal its support of an undercover operation proving that Planned Parenthood routinely peddles the organs and tissues of babies aborted in its "health centers." This systematic profiteering is known about and approved by officers at the abortion giant's highest levels of authority. Planned Parenthood's abortionists will even alter the abortion procedure in order to guarantee the tissues most sought after--regardless of what might be best for the aborting mother.

[...]

Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: "The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project."

Familiar as we are with the contract killer's practices, Life Legal can't claim to be surprised by Planned Parenthood's utter disregard for medical ethics. But we are delighted that it has been so ably and thoroughly documented by David Daleiden.

Life Legal is proud to have taken an active, essential role in exposing Planned Parenthood's "Dr. Frankenstein" wrongdoing. Katie Short, Life Legal's Vice-President for Legal Affairs, remarked, "Planned Parenthood's unconscionable acts are recorded and proven. But it will take a lot of pressure to bring consequences to bear. After these revelations, the first thing every public official should be asked is why a penny of taxpayer money is going to fund any part of Planned Parenthood's work."

Having been with the project from its inception, Life Legal is committed to following through. Planned Parenthood will not lightly escape the judgment it has merited by trafficking in babies' eyes, hearts, livers, muscles, and other organs and tissues. [Life Legal Defense Fund, 7/14/15]

Life Legal Defense Foundation Does Not Meet Standards Of Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance. According to the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance, which "helps donors make informed giving decisions and promotes high standards of conduct among organizations that solicit contributions from the public," the Life Legal Defense Foundation does not meet their standards for charity accountability. Citing the organization's indirect compensation of board member's sibling as well as inaccurate "presentation of LLDF's fund raising and program service expenses. [Give.org, Accessed 7/15/15]

Right Wing Watch: Life Legal Defense Foundation EspousedConspiracy Theory That National Defense Authorization Act Was "Really A Way ... To Round Up Anti-Abortion Activists And Imprison Them Indefinitely Without Trial." In a January 2012 post, Right Wing Watch called out members of the "Religious Right" -- including the Life Legal Defense Foundation -- who forwarded the fringe conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration's National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 would allow the government to permanently imprison pro-life activists without a trial. Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com at the time, Dana Cody, the president and executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, said her organization was studying the NDAA because it says "enemy territory could be anywhere," and added, "If it's within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum." [Right Wing Watch, 1/4/12]

Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded a PPFA official 'haggling over' prices for fetal tissue donations.

In its latest deceptively edited video, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) claims to have caught a Planned Parenthood official "haggling" over the price of "baby parts" and agreeing to change abortion methods to aid the fetal tissue collection process. But the full video and transcript show the official confirming that any change in procedure is done pursuant to medical advice without additional risk to the patient, and that the compensation being discussed was about legal reimbursement for costs associated with tissue donation.

ANTI-CHOICE GROUP RELEASED ANOTHER DECEPTIVELY EDITED VIDEO PURPORTING TO SHOW PLANNED PARENTHOOD OFFICIAL "HAGGLING OVER PAYMENTS" FOR "BABY PARTS"

Center For Medical Progress:"Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods." In a video released on July 21, the Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded PPFA Medical Directors' Council President Mary Gatter "haggling over" prices for fetal tissue donations and offering to change techniques "to get more intact body parts." According to the organization's press release:

By the lunch's end, Gatter suggests $100 per specimen is not enough and concludes, "Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini."

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Gatter also suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses: "I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen."

Gatter seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection, but disregards them: "To me, that's kind of a specious little argument." Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

The video, like last week's featuring Dr. Nucatola, was produced by The Center for Medical Progress and is part of CMP's nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study, "Human Capital." [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Edited Video: Gatter Admitted "Planned Parenthood Received Payment In Spite Of Incurring No Costs." The Center for Medical Progress' press release claims that the deceptively cut video shows Gatter admitted that Planned Parenthood receives payment for fetal tissue donation "in spite of incurring no costs," pointing to the 8-minute long video where Gatter saying the process "was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this":

Gatter also admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost: "It was logistically very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. So there was compensation for this." She accepts a higher price of $100 per specimen understanding that it will be only for high-quality fetal organs: "Now, this is for tissue that you actually take, not just tissue that someone volunteers and you can't find anything, right?" [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Full Video Shows Gatter Was Discussing Process Of Obtaining Consent And Sorting Donations. The Center for Medical Progress' transcript of the full-video reveals that when Gatter said "It was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this," she was discussing the process of working with a company to obtain consent for the donations and decide which donations could be used, citing how it was "logistically ... very easy" because a representative was there to help make the decision (emphasis added):

GATTER: So Novogenix was our partner in PPLA and they would send us- you know, big volume. They would send their staff to the site, and our staff, our medical assistants were used to discussing with the patients, do you want to consent? And they would say yes or no, and a lot of them said yes. Maybe it wasn't entirely sixty, and then once the patients have signed the consent form, the patients did not receive digoxin, and Heather would look at the tissue- that's probably Laura- she would take the pieces that she wanted and it worked out well for everyone. She was unobtrusive, she was helpful, she did all that kind of stuff.

LAUREL [Gatter's Colleague]: Oh, my apologies. Hi.

GATTER: So we just started the conversation.

GATTER: They're a start up, they've have been about a year in business. They are for profit company connecting researchers with people willing to donate tissue. We just started talking- they were a little bit concerned about the fact that they're in Long Beach, but they understand that every California affiliate is paired up in a tissue donation program, except for Pasadena. Volume, that you for getting it to me is eight hundred a year. We were just starting to talk about the process worked with Novogenix down in Los Angeles when I was there. To back up a little bit, PPFA, our parent body, is on board with tissue donation, but we have to ask for a waiver to do it, and we have to lay out for them what our program's gonna be like. And it's absolutely a requirement that we use only the official, federal government form for tissue donation, that we don't modify it in any way. Novogenix was working on a concept that California has slightly different requirements, and so it's different, and so they wanted to very reasonably insert the California requirements into the consent form, the federal form, PPFA said no, you have to have two separate forms, so it just added to the burden of consent issues. But I was also explaining to them, back when I was in Los Angeles maybe sixty to seventy percent of people said yes to tissue donation.

So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn't have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don't know what you're used to doing, how you're used to doing compensation. Patients don't care what we do, of course, but- [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Video Shows Gattner Was Talking About "Costs Associated With The Use Of Our Space" -- Compensation For Which Is Legal According To Federal Law. Even in the 8-minute video, Gattner's full comments reveal that the compensation being discussed was to offset clinic costs such as "costs associated with the use of our space," a legal industry standard for fetal tissue donation.

GATTER: And we don't want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that. On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space, and all that kind of stuff.

Edited Video:Gatter "Suggests Modifying Abortion Procedure To Get More Intact Fetuses." According to CMP's press release, the 8-minute version of its video shows Gatter "suggest[ing] modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses.":

BUYER [ACTOR]: You know, 10 to 12 week, end of the first trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens then that's something we can work with.

GATTER: So that's an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks and we switch to using IPAS or something with less suction or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we're kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient we're not doing anything different in our care of you. Now to me, that's kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn't object to asking Ian, who's our surgeon who does the cases, to use IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he's going to get an intact specimen. But I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing to something and we're signing to something that we're not changing anything with the way we're managing you just because you agreed to give tissue. You've heard that before.

BUYER [ACTOR]: Yes, it's difficult. It's touchy. How do you feel about that?

GATTER: I think they're both totally appropriate techniques, there's no difference in pain involved. I don't think the patients would care one iota. So I'm not making a fuss about that.

GATTER: Now you have my email address right? Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a "less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/21/15, 7/21/15]

Full Video Shows Gatter Reiterating That She Cannot Modify Procedure Herself And It Won't Heighten Patient Risk. Left out of the edited video is Gatter and her colleague explaining that there are at least two different ways to perform the type of abortion in question, but the "slight variation" of IPAS (manual suction) does not put the patient at any more risk. Because some have argued that the consent forms patients sign would not allow doctors to perform a potentially longer procedure, even if the longer procedure were just as safe, before Gatter can endorse one type of procedure over the other she specifically tells the CMP actor she will have to consult with the surgeon she works with (emphasis added):

ACTOR: You're not putting the patient at any more risk, right? As you said.

GATTER: No. Just slight variation of the technique.

ACTOR: Okay.

LAUREL: Which, the consent they're signing is for suction aspiration, it doesn't describe what kind it is.

GATTER: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we're not doing anything different, so.

ACTOR: That's what I need to understand, because what I'm seeing it as, of course, I'm looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

GATTER: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you're slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you're increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they're technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.

ACTOR: So it's technicalities, is what I'm hearing.

GATTER: It's something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/21/15]

Abortion Methods Described By Gatter Are The Most Common Methods Of Abortion During First Twelve Weeks Of Pregnancy. The methods of abortion Gattner identified as most common at her clinic are two variations of what is known as "aspiration" abortion, one variation of which uses a manual pump. According to women's health group Our Bodies Ourselves, the procedure is the most common method "during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy" and is "a safe medical procedure" with small risk of complications:

Although the number of women in the United States choosing medication abortion (abortion with pills) is increasing each year, aspiration abortion (also called surgical or suction abortion) is the currently the most common method used for abortions during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. In 2010, about 72% of all first trimester abortions were aspiration abortions.

Some of the reasons women choose aspiration abortion over medication abortion are easier access and higher success rates. In addition, a surgical abortion is shorter and completed in a predictable period and fewer office visits are needed.

In aspiration abortion, the uterine contents are removed by suction (aspiration), which is applied through a cannula, a thin tube that is inserted into the uterus and connected to a source of suction, either an electric pump or a handheld syringe. (If no electric pump is used, the abortion is a manual vacuum aspiration, or MVA.)

SAFETY

Aspiration abortion is a safe medical procedure. Fewer than 1 in 200 women who have an aspiration abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy experience a complication that requires hospitalization. The risk of death from abortion is always lower than the risk of death involved in carrying a pregnancy to term. [Our Bodies Ourselves, 4/2/15]

Association Of Reproductive Health Professionals: "Overall Effectiveness, Patient Satisfaction, And Complication Rates Are Comparable" For Both Types Of Aspiration Abortion. In a 2008 reference guide for clinicians, ARHP confirmed that both electric or manual vacuum aspiration "are safe and can easily be performed." Additionally, "in patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, [manual vacuum aspiration] results in less patient perception of pain":

Vacuum uterine aspiration allows for the simple evacuation of the uterus through a cannula attached to either an electric or manual vacuum source. Both methods of evacuation are safe and can easily be performed in any setting, including an office, emergency room, or the operating room. When conducted in the outpatient setting rather than operating room, vacuum uterine aspiration can result in substantial cost savings and significantly reduce patient waiting periods for services.

[...]

Overall effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and complication rates are comparable for EVA and MVA. MVA is highly portable, virtually silent, reusable, and available at a low cost. In patients who are less than 50 days of gestation, MVA results in less patient perception of pain as compared to EVA, but takes longer to complete. Additionally, pregnancy tissue may be easier to identify after MVA than EVA. Clinicians also report high satisfaction in the use of MVA. [Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, "Manual Vacuum Aspiration," June 2008]

Federal Statute 42 U.S.C. 289g-1: The "Research On Transplantation Of Fetal Tissue" Law Does Not Ban Alterations In Medical Procedure. In its explanation that "federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection," the CMP press release incompletely described the statute governing fetal tissue donation. In fact, 42 U.S.C. 289g-1 only regulates alterations to the procedure that are done "solely" for obtaining the tissue; alterations for other reasons are permitted:

In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that--

(A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion--

(i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research;

(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue [42 U.S.C. 289g-1, Accessed 7/21/15]

Planned Parenthood Statement: Fetal Donations Were Done "Under The Highest Ethical And Legal Standards," And Provide Them "No Financial Benefit." In a July 17 statement responding to the first video, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood's Vice President of Communications, explained that the organization's clinics "help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research" with "the highest ethical and legal standards." Ferrero noted that the organization received "no financial benefit" from the arrangement aside from reimbursement of "actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue" -- consistent with industry standards:

"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

"A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case." [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 7/14/15]

PAYMENT FOR FETAL TISSUE MAY BE ACCEPTED ONLY TO OFFSET "REASONABLE EXPENSES"

Federal Law Allows For Donations Of Fetal Tissue With Consent. Federal law regarding the use of human fetal tissue does not prohibit the use of donated materials. [Title 42 U.S. Code § 289g-2, Accessed 7/14/15]

Health And Human Services Independent Review Board: Providers May Accept Payment "For Reasonable Expenses" With "Informed Consent." The set of standards outlined by the Health And Human Services Independent Review Board guidebook, the industry standard for medical research, explains that payment for fetal tissue may be obtained "for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues" (emphasis added):

Prohibiting Payments and Other Inducements

· Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.

Informed Consent

· Potential recipients of such tissues, as well as research and health care participants, should be properly informed about the source of the tissues in question.

· The decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of the fetal tissue and any request for such consent that might be required for that use.

· Fetal tissue from induced abortions should not be used in medical research without the prior consent of the pregnant woman. Her decision to donate fetal remains is sufficient for the use of tissue, unless the father objects (except in cases of incest or rape).

· Consent should be obtained in compliance with state law and with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. [Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Accessed 7/14/15]

PREVIOUS VIDEO FROM CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS WAS DECEPTIVELY EDITED

First Full Video Released By Group Revealed That Crucial Portions Were Edited Out. This video is the second in a series released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The first was a July 14 video, which also relied on deceptive edits to falsely claim Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola had discussed how the organization "sells the body parts of aborted fetuses." The nearly nine-minute video and an accompanying press release also claimed that Planned Parenthood was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 289g-2, a federal law regulating the use and sale of fetal tissue. Yet the entire, unedited, nearly three-hour version of the first video that CMP released contains several sections that were edited out of the shorter video, which contradict the group's assertions. For example, as the unedited transcript shows, Dr. Nucatola says, "Nobody should be 'selling' tissue," and she repeatedly referred to "tissue donation" during the conversation. The edited video also jumps ahead nearly eight minutes in the middle of a discussion about money in an attempt to falsely frame Nucatola's comments as having to do with the sale price of tissue, but the unedited version reveals that she was actually discussing reimbursement costs for legal donation during those missing minutes. [Media Matters for America, 7/14/15]

THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS HAS ALMOST NO INTERNET FOOTPRINT

Center For Medical Progress Describes Itself As A Non-Profit "Group Of Citizen Journalists." According to the organization's website description of itself:

The Center for Medical Progress is a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances. We are concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings. We envision a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them.

The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]

Center For Medical Progress Has A Small And Recent Internet Footprint. CMP's presence online was nearly non-existent until several weeks ago. The group's Facebook page shows no posts before May 24 of this year and the organization didn't join Twitter until May 30. No videos other than the deceptively edited Planned Parenthood clips appear on the group's YouTube site. The website address listed on their Facebook page leads to a Postal Annex in Irvine, CA instead of real organization. [Facebook.com, accessed 7/15/15; Twitter.com, accessed 7/15/15, YouTube.com, accessed 7/15/15; Yelp.com, accessed 7/15/15]

CMP'S FOUNDER, DAVID DALEIDEN, HAS A LONG HISTORY WITH DISCREDITED CONSERVATIVE GROUPS

Center For Medical Progress: Daleiden Is "Founder" And Project Lead For The "Human Capital" Investigation. According to the Center for Medical Progress' website, Daleiden not only spearheaded the "Human Capital" investigation that produced the deceptively edited video attacking Planned Parenthood, he also founded the organization. Daleiden's bio also describes his past work at conservative news outlet The Weekly Standard:

David Daleiden is a citizen journalist with nearly a decade of experience in conducting investigative research on the abortion industry. In 2013, David started The Center for Medical Progressas a vehicle through which to pursue sophisticated, in-depth, and scintillating investigative journalism projects pertaining to contemporary bioethical issues.

As Project Lead at CMP, David recently completed the organization's first long-term project, the 30-month-long "Human Capital" investigation documenting Planned Parenthood's illegal sale of body parts from aborted fetuses. Prior to CMP, David worked as Director of Research for a national new media education and advocacy organization. David is a graduate of Claremont McKenna College with a B.A. in Government, and his writing has been published in The Weekly Standard and The Human Life Review. [Center for Medical Progress, Accessed 7/15/15]

Life Legal Defense Fund Credits Daleiden As Director Of CMP's Project. In a press release discussing CMP's first video, the Life Legal Defense Fund credited David Daleiden as the director of the "Human Capital" project behind the deceptively edited video, thanking him specifically "for bringing these shocking practices to light":

The "Human Capital" project was a nearly 3-year-long undertaking produced by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Directed by CMP Project Lead David Daleiden, the effort secured audio and video recordings of Planned Parenthood administrators and abortionists casually agreeing to sell freshly-extracted parts from their abortions. CMP's devastating expose of PP's trade in body parts may be seen at centerformedicalprogress.org.

[...]

Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: "The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project." [Christian News Wire, 7/14/15]

Daleiden Was Formerly The Director of Research At Live Action. In 2009, Daleiden was the director of research for the discredited anti-abortion group Live Action, which has been criticized before for deceptively editing undercover footage of abortion clinics in an attempt to smear Planned Parenthood. According to Daleiden's bio from the time on Live Action's website, he assumed his role in 2008 and was later banned from Pomona College's campus after "videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape":

David Daleiden has a passion for promoting the culture of life in communities and campuses across the country. He is proud to be a part of the Live Action team.

A native of the Sacramento area, David first became involved with the pro-life movement at age 15, working with local college pro-life groups and learning from veteran activists in his community. He founded a pro-life club at his high school, helped bring pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf to his hometown, and has participated in the "Genocide Awareness Project" to show abortion images to the public. David points to such images as the original impetus for his work in the pro-life movement.

During high school, David was also heavily involved in speech and debate. He first met Lila Rose in the Junior State of America (JSA) organization, and over the years became more and more involved in Live Action.

In 2007, David began his studies at Claremont McKenna College (CMC) in Claremont, California. David currently runs a Live Action chapter in Claremont, which routinely conducts sidewalk counseling efforts, community education, and campus activism.

David took on his current role as Director of Research for Live Action in 2008 during the early stages of the Mona Lisa Project. In March 2009, David and a fellow student were banned from sister campus Pomona College after videotaping a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles speaker denying Planned Parenthood's responsibility for the cover-up of statutory rape. The ban was soon lifted after intense public scrutiny. [Live Action, 8/17/09; Media Matters for America, 2/4/11; Media Matters for America, 5/31/12]

Snopes: Daleiden Is ReportedlyFriends WithConservative Figure Best Known For "Severely Edited" Videos. A Snopes.com takedown of CMP's video noted that Daleiden is reportedly a friend of James O'Keefe -- another conservative figure notrious for using "severely edited" videos to target liberal organizations:

An individual named David Daleiden has been widely credited as the "leader" of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden's online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:

James O'Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden's. O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They've brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.

O'Keefe came to prominence in 2009 after he produced "egregiously misleading" and "severely edited" videos targeting agencies such as ACORN." [Snopes.com, 7/14/15]

A CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS BOARD MEMBER CALLED MURDER OF ABORTION DOCTOR "JUSTIFIED"

Newman Called Murder Of Abortion Clinic Doctor A "Justifiable Defensive Action." In a 2003 press release, Newman defended Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection for murdering abortion doctor John Britton in Pensacola, FL. Newman argued that Hill should have been able to defend himself by classifying the murder as justifiable.

Today's scheduled execution of Paul Hill is not justice, but is another example of the judicial tyranny that is gripping our nation. A Florida judge denied Rev. Hill his right to present a defense that claimed that the killing of the abortionist was necessary to save the lives of the pre-born babies that were scheduled to be killed by abortion that day. Our system of justice is based upon 'innocent until proven guilty,' but in Rev. Hill's case, there was no justice because the court prevented him from presenting the legal defense that his conduct was justifiable defensive action.

"There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law. Paul Hill should have been given the opportunity to defend himself with the defense of his choosing in a court of law. [Operation Rescue West press release, 9/3/03]

Newman will pick through clinic workers' trash to figure out where they do business; he'll trail them at a distance to learn their routines. His goal is not just to make their lives uncomfortable. He wants to unsettle and disgust their friends and associates, so their hairstylists and their pharmacists, even their neighbors, make it clear they're not welcome in Wichita. [Los Angeles Times, 2/17/04]

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS IS ALSO CONNECTED TO A DISREPUTABLE ANTI-CHOICE ORGANIZATION

Vox: Center For Medical Progress "Appears To Be Associated" With Life Legal Defense Foundation. In a July 14 post detailing the controversy around the deceptively edited video released by CMP, Vox noted that the Life Legal Defense Foundation "appears to be associated with" the organization, linking to a series of materials on Life Legal's website from the Center For Medical Progress. [Vox, 7/14/15]

Life Legal Defense Foundation Has Been With The Center For Medical Progress "From The Very Start." In a press release discussing CMP's video, the Life Legal Defense Fund said it had been working with CMP "from the very start":

Life Legal Defense Foundation was finally able today to reveal its support of an undercover operation proving that Planned Parenthood routinely peddles the organs and tissues of babies aborted in its "health centers." This systematic profiteering is known about and approved by officers at the abortion giant's highest levels of authority. Planned Parenthood's abortionists will even alter the abortion procedure in order to guarantee the tissues most sought after--regardless of what might be best for the aborting mother.

[...]

Life Legal gives the credit for bringing these shocking practices to light to David Daleiden. But Daleiden gives a lot of credit to Life Legal: "The Center for Medical Progress thanks Life Legal Defense Foundation for their initiative and foresight in consulting on and helping to develop this project."

Familiar as we are with the contract killer's practices, Life Legal can't claim to be surprised by Planned Parenthood's utter disregard for medical ethics. But we are delighted that it has been so ably and thoroughly documented by David Daleiden.

Life Legal is proud to have taken an active, essential role in exposing Planned Parenthood's "Dr. Frankenstein" wrongdoing. Katie Short, Life Legal's Vice-President for Legal Affairs, remarked, "Planned Parenthood's unconscionable acts are recorded and proven. But it will take a lot of pressure to bring consequences to bear. After these revelations, the first thing every public official should be asked is why a penny of taxpayer money is going to fund any part of Planned Parenthood's work."

Having been with the project from its inception, Life Legal is committed to following through. Planned Parenthood will not lightly escape the judgment it has merited by trafficking in babies' eyes, hearts, livers, muscles, and other organs and tissues. [Life Legal Defense Fund, 7/14/15]

Life Legal Defense Foundation Does Not Meet Standards Of Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance. According to the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance, which "helps donors make informed giving decisions and promotes high standards of conduct among organizations that solicit contributions from the public," the Life Legal Defense Foundation does not meet their standards for charity accountability. Citing the organization's indirect compensation of board member's sibling as well as inaccurate "presentation of LLDF's fund raising and program service expenses. [Give.org, Accessed 7/15/15]

Right Wing Watch: Life Legal Defense Foundation EspousedConspiracy Theory That National Defense Authorization Act Was "Really A Way ... To Round Up Anti-Abortion Activists And Imprison Them Indefinitely Without Trial." In a January 2012 post, Right Wing Watch called out members of the "Religious Right" -- including the Life Legal Defense Foundation -- who forwarded the fringe conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration's National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 would allow the government to permanently imprison pro-life activists without a trial. Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com at the time, Dana Cody, the president and executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, said her organization was studying the NDAA because it says "enemy territory could be anywhere," and added, "If it's within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum." [Right Wing Watch, 1/4/12]

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/gender/british-politician-shuts-down-sexist-questions-about-her-weight-best-answer-everBritish Politician Shuts Down Sexist Questions About Her Weight With the Best Answer Ever http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/102480100/0/alternet_gender~British-Politician-Shuts-Down-Sexist-Questions-About-Her-Weight-With-the-Best-Answer-Ever

Liz Kendall wasn't having it when a reporter for the Mail asked about her body.

Women, take notes. Whatever your size, whatever your build, this is the correct response to an inquiry about your weight. As British Labour Party leader contender Liz Kendall reportedly put it this weekend, “F__k off.”

Kendall is a rising star in British politics. If you were to read other coverage of recent activities, you might have picked up her speech about galvanizing her party so “people have the power to shape their lives,the services they use, and the communities in which they live.” She is also woman so let’s also talk clothes and babies and her body! Spoiler: This is about the Mail.

In an interview with the Mail’s Simon Walters on Sunday, she is described as the “unmarried Kendall, 44,” asked why her last relationship ended, and if she wants to get married and have kids. It’s possible that a tabloid would ask similar questions of a single male politician — here in the U.S., 46-year-old Cory Booker has certainly fielded his share — but then the narrative moves on. There is commentary on how the “slinky brunette” “maintains her lithe figure” and the cost of her “emerald green suede high heels.” But for the real kicker, Walters writes, “She looks the same weight as the Duchess – about 8 st [about 112 pounds] – though when I ask she slaps me down with a raucous ‘f__k off!’ adding quickly: ‘Don’t print that.’” But print it he did. And I’m glad.

I’m glad because this is what needs to be said, repeatedly, when women are asked about their weight in any context other than certain doctor visits and Olympic boxing matches. What’s my weight? F__k off, that’s my weight. (Also acceptable: Amy Schumer’s observation that “I’m probably like 160 pounds right now, and I can catch a dick whenever I want.”) Speaking to the BBC Sunday, Kendall said that she “cannot wait for a world when women are judged the same as men,” though the report did note that the Mail approvingly referred to Conservative politician George Osborne as “a real skinny malink” in 2014. Yet Kendall is entirely correct in her observation that “I just think it’s unbelievable that in the 21st Century women still get asked such very, very different questions from men.” It’s a reality borne out again and again, every time a woman walks a red carpet or makes an action movie or appears in her capacity as secretary of state and fields inquiries about who her favorite designers are.It’s proven every time she has a child and is instantly assumed to be flaunting her post-baby body.

Perhaps the day will come when a woman can just have a career without irrational obsession over her weight. Perhaps she can be judged by something other than her shape in relation to that of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. And I believe those things will change when women stop being polite and deferential and apologetic to others — and themselves — about their size. It’ll change when we all take ownership of saying no to rude and dumb questions about our bodies, preferably with a profanity or two thrown in.

Liz Kendall wasn't having it when a reporter for the Mail asked about her body.

Women, take notes. Whatever your size, whatever your build, this is the correct response to an inquiry about your weight. As British Labour Party leader contender Liz Kendall reportedly put it this weekend, “F__k off.”

Kendall is a rising star in British politics. If you were to read other coverage of recent activities, you might have picked up her speech about galvanizing her party so “people have the power to shape their lives,the services they use, and the communities in which they live.” She is also woman so let’s also talk clothes and babies and her body! Spoiler: This is about the Mail.

In an interview with the Mail’s Simon Walters on Sunday, she is described as the “unmarried Kendall, 44,” asked why her last relationship ended, and if she wants to get married and have kids. It’s possible that a tabloid would ask similar questions of a single male politician — here in the U.S., 46-year-old Cory Booker has certainly fielded his share — but then the narrative moves on. There is commentary on how the “slinky brunette” “maintains her lithe figure” and the cost of her “emerald green suede high heels.” But for the real kicker, Walters writes, “She looks the same weight as the Duchess – about 8 st [about 112 pounds] – though when I ask she slaps me down with a raucous ‘f__k off!’ adding quickly: ‘Don’t print that.’” But print it he did. And I’m glad.

I’m glad because this is what needs to be said, repeatedly, when women are asked about their weight in any context other than certain doctor visits and Olympic boxing matches. What’s my weight? F__k off, that’s my weight. (Also acceptable: Amy Schumer’s observation that “I’m probably like 160 pounds right now, and I can catch a dick whenever I want.”) Speaking to the BBC Sunday, Kendall said that she “cannot wait for a world when women are judged the same as men,” though the report did note that the Mail approvingly referred to Conservative politician George Osborne as “a real skinny malink” in 2014. Yet Kendall is entirely correct in her observation that “I just think it’s unbelievable that in the 21st Century women still get asked such very, very different questions from men.” It’s a reality borne out again and again, every time a woman walks a red carpet or makes an action movie or appears in her capacity as secretary of state and fields inquiries about who her favorite designers are.It’s proven every time she has a child and is instantly assumed to be flaunting her post-baby body.

Perhaps the day will come when a woman can just have a career without irrational obsession over her weight. Perhaps she can be judged by something other than her shape in relation to that of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. And I believe those things will change when women stop being polite and deferential and apologetic to others — and themselves — about their size. It’ll change when we all take ownership of saying no to rude and dumb questions about our bodies, preferably with a profanity or two thrown in.

To my great shame, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me, even though I’m a seasoned feminist and I know better.

Being on the subways and streets of New York while female used to mean walking through a veritable gauntlet of harassment and catcalls. But lately, a curious thing has happened – my world is a much quieter place. The comments and lascivious stares from men have faded away the older I’ve gotten, leaving an understandable sense of relief. But alongside that is a slightly embarrassing feeling of insecurity that, with every year that goes by, I become more and more invisible to men.

From the time I was 11 or 12 years old – when I began taking the train to school – I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the worst things men say to girls and young women. There was the man in a business suit who told me to “take care of those titties for me”; the man who – when I was in seventh grade – masturbated in front of me on the subway platform near my home; the man who walked by me in the street, leaned in close, and whispered “I want to lick you” so close to my ear that I could feel his hot breath.

It was miserable. But still, as much as I wish it didn’t, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me. To my great shame, I assume I must look particularly good on the rarer days that I do get catcalled.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons besides my age that street harassment has waned over the years. I’m more likely to be walking around with my four-year-old daughter than not these days, and hopefully even harassers have some sense of propriety. And as women get older they’re less likely to put up with nonsense; I’ve become much more likely to scream at and shame catcallers in recent years, a much different tact than my teen years, when I would just shrink into myself.

There’s a freedom to that – I wouldn’t trade my quiet morning walks for the hellishness of my teen years for anything. But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men, the absence of their attention – even negative attention – can feel distressing. Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old? (I’m reminded of a Vanity Fair profile of the gorgeous actress Rose Byrne where the reporter noted with surprise that Byrne showed no embarrassment at admitting she was – gasp! – 35 years old.)

I realize the most properly-feminist response to all of this would be to proudly declare that I don’t care, that being too old to catcall is glorious freedom. But that would be a lie. I do care in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics – enough that it worries me to wonder how I’ll feel when I’m 45, or 65.

I know that my reaction is normal, considering the culture I’ve grown up in, as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think. But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism – room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.

Being harassed on the street is not a compliment, and it surely has never felt like one. For most, if not all women, it can be scary and sometimes dangerous to deal with. But I can admit that - even as a seasoned feminist - sexism is a powerful enough force to still reside my head. Maybe by acknowledging as much I can begin to let it go (hopefully, long before I turn 45).

To my great shame, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me, even though I’m a seasoned feminist and I know better.

Being on the subways and streets of New York while female used to mean walking through a veritable gauntlet of harassment and catcalls. But lately, a curious thing has happened – my world is a much quieter place. The comments and lascivious stares from men have faded away the older I’ve gotten, leaving an understandable sense of relief. But alongside that is a slightly embarrassing feeling of insecurity that, with every year that goes by, I become more and more invisible to men.

From the time I was 11 or 12 years old – when I began taking the train to school – I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the worst things men say to girls and young women. There was the man in a business suit who told me to “take care of those titties for me”; the man who – when I was in seventh grade – masturbated in front of me on the subway platform near my home; the man who walked by me in the street, leaned in close, and whispered “I want to lick you” so close to my ear that I could feel his hot breath.

It was miserable. But still, as much as I wish it didn’t, the thought of not being worth men’s notice bothers me. To my great shame, I assume I must look particularly good on the rarer days that I do get catcalled.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons besides my age that street harassment has waned over the years. I’m more likely to be walking around with my four-year-old daughter than not these days, and hopefully even harassers have some sense of propriety. And as women get older they’re less likely to put up with nonsense; I’ve become much more likely to scream at and shame catcallers in recent years, a much different tact than my teen years, when I would just shrink into myself.

There’s a freedom to that – I wouldn’t trade my quiet morning walks for the hellishness of my teen years for anything. But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men, the absence of their attention – even negative attention – can feel distressing. Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old? (I’m reminded of a Vanity Fair profile of the gorgeous actress Rose Byrne where the reporter noted with surprise that Byrne showed no embarrassment at admitting she was – gasp! – 35 years old.)

I realize the most properly-feminist response to all of this would be to proudly declare that I don’t care, that being too old to catcall is glorious freedom. But that would be a lie. I do care in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics – enough that it worries me to wonder how I’ll feel when I’m 45, or 65.

I know that my reaction is normal, considering the culture I’ve grown up in, as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think. But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism – room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.

Being harassed on the street is not a compliment, and it surely has never felt like one. For most, if not all women, it can be scary and sometimes dangerous to deal with. But I can admit that - even as a seasoned feminist - sexism is a powerful enough force to still reside my head. Maybe by acknowledging as much I can begin to let it go (hopefully, long before I turn 45).

How the lie that Planned Parenthood was 'selling aborted baby parts' was sold.

A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.

Center For Medical Progress: Video Proves Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts." In a July 14 video, The Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola discussing how the organization "sells the body parts of aborted fetuses." The nearly 9-minute video and an accompanying press release claimed that the organization was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 289g-2, a federal law regulating the use and sale of fetal tissue. According to the organization's press release:

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA's Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

[...]

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

At Least 3 Major Edits To The Video Undermine The Deceptive Attack

Unedited Transcript: "Nobody Should Be 'Selling' Tissue. That's Just Not The Goal Here." The Center for Medical Progress also released a full transcript and longer version of the video with Dr. Nucatola -- featuring more than 150 minutes of additional footage -- which include crucial portions that were edited out. In one case, Nucatola says, "no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be 'selling' tissue. That's just not the goal here." From the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added):

Buyer [ACTOR]: Ok. I'm just trying to brainstorm. Because, I think offering some people, not only, just offsetting their cost in other areas, seeing the potential for that, besides the potential, for the patient, I'm still going down that road, even though I know, I understand what you're saying. This cannot be seen as, "We're doing this for profit."

PP [NUCATOLA]: No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be "selling" tissue. That's just not the goal here.

Buyer [ACTOR]: Right. And, I never see that as, I don't look at it that way, we're not selling tissue, we're selling the possibility of what the research can offer. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

Video Jumps Nearly 8 Minutes In The Middle Of The Conversation About Money. In the short version of the video, a confusing exchange takes place misleadingly implying that at one point, Dr. Nucatola discussed the cost of the tissue, but timestamps on the footage reveal nearly eight minutes of conversation was removed:

ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what -- what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved.

But The Unedited Footage Reveals PPFA Official Was Discussing Reimbursement Costs For Legal Donation Process During Those Missing Minutes. The unedited video reveals the full context for Nucatola's cost comments. Right after the video jumps forward, Nucatola specifically references exact "shipping" and other associated costs which could legally be reimbursed, before discussing affiliates' general "bottom line" attempts to "break even":

ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

ACTOR: Did you say 67?

NUCATOLA: 67.

ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

PPFA Official Repeatedly Referred To "Tissue Donation," Not Sale, In Unedited Transcript. Dr. Nucatola repeatedly refers to "tissue donation" during the conversation. From the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added):

NUCATOLA: Right now, when they are consenting to tissue donation, they're just consenting to what happens with the tissue after the procedure is done.

[...]

You could do a workshop on tissue donation and what it means. We want to do a little reception at the National Medical Conference or Forum or something.

[...]

I do think feedback is good too. Sure, anyone can come get the tissue donation and send it off. I think affiliates would like to know, we send specimens to research who are working on this and this. I think that kind of positive feedback in the end it will just be a better relationship, it just kind of adds a whole human touch. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

PPFA: "No Financial Benefit" From Legal Donations Of Tissue

Planned Parenthood Statement: Fetal Donations Were Done "Under The Highest Ethical And Legal Standards," And Provide Them "No Financial Benefit." In a July 17 statement, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood's Vice President of Communications, explained that the organization's clinics "help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research" with "the highest ethical and legal standards." Ferrero noted that the organization received "no financial benefit" from the arrangement aside from reimbursement of "actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue" -- consistent with industry standards:

"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

"A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case." [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 7/14/15]

Donating Fetal Tissue Is Legal With Consent Of Donor

Federal Law Does Not Prohibit Donations Of Fetal Tissue With Consent. Federal law regarding the use of human fetal tissue does not prohibit the use of donated materials. [Title 42 U.S. Code § 289g-2, Accessed 7/14/15]

Health And Human Services Independent Review Board: Providers May Accept Payment "For Reasonable Expenses" With "Informed Consent." The set of standards outlined by the Health And Human Services Independent Review Board guidebook, the industry standard for medical research, explains that payment for fetal tissue may be obtained "for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues" (emphasis added):

Prohibiting Payments and Other Inducements

Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.

Informed Consent

Potential recipients of such tissues, as well as research and health care participants, should be properly informed about the source of the tissues in question.

The decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of the fetal tissue and any request for such consent that might be required for that use.

Fetal tissue from induced abortions should not be used in medical research without the prior consent of the pregnant woman. Her decision to donate fetal remains is sufficient for the use of tissue, unless the father objects (except in cases of incest or rape).

Consent should be obtained in compliance with state law and with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. [Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Accessed 7/14/15]

David Daleidan Is A Former Writer For Discredited Anti-Choice Organization Live Action. David Daleiden, the contact person regarding The Central For Medical Progress' video, is a former writer for discredited anti-choice organization Live Action News. The group has previously come under fire for deceptively editing undercover footage of abortion clinics in order to make false claims about Planned Parenthood. [Live Action News, accessed, 7/14/15; Media Matters for America, 2/4/11; Media Matters for America, 5/31/12]

How the lie that Planned Parenthood was 'selling aborted baby parts' was sold.

A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.

Center For Medical Progress: Video Proves Planned Parenthood Is "Selling Aborted Baby Parts." In a July 14 video, The Center for Medical Progress claimed to have recorded Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola discussing how the organization "sells the body parts of aborted fetuses." The nearly 9-minute video and an accompanying press release claimed that the organization was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 289g-2, a federal law regulating the use and sale of fetal tissue. According to the organization's press release:

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA's Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

[...]

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

At Least 3 Major Edits To The Video Undermine The Deceptive Attack

Unedited Transcript: "Nobody Should Be 'Selling' Tissue. That's Just Not The Goal Here." The Center for Medical Progress also released a full transcript and longer version of the video with Dr. Nucatola -- featuring more than 150 minutes of additional footage -- which include crucial portions that were edited out. In one case, Nucatola says, "no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be 'selling' tissue. That's just not the goal here." From the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added):

Buyer [ACTOR]: Ok. I'm just trying to brainstorm. Because, I think offering some people, not only, just offsetting their cost in other areas, seeing the potential for that, besides the potential, for the patient, I'm still going down that road, even though I know, I understand what you're saying. This cannot be seen as, "We're doing this for profit."

PP [NUCATOLA]: No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be "selling" tissue. That's just not the goal here.

Buyer [ACTOR]: Right. And, I never see that as, I don't look at it that way, we're not selling tissue, we're selling the possibility of what the research can offer. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

Video Jumps Nearly 8 Minutes In The Middle Of The Conversation About Money. In the short version of the video, a confusing exchange takes place misleadingly implying that at one point, Dr. Nucatola discussed the cost of the tissue, but timestamps on the footage reveal nearly eight minutes of conversation was removed:

ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what -- what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved.

But The Unedited Footage Reveals PPFA Official Was Discussing Reimbursement Costs For Legal Donation Process During Those Missing Minutes. The unedited video reveals the full context for Nucatola's cost comments. Right after the video jumps forward, Nucatola specifically references exact "shipping" and other associated costs which could legally be reimbursed, before discussing affiliates' general "bottom line" attempts to "break even":

ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

NUCATOLA: Yes.

ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --

NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

ACTOR: Did you say 67?

NUCATOLA: 67.

ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

PPFA Official Repeatedly Referred To "Tissue Donation," Not Sale, In Unedited Transcript. Dr. Nucatola repeatedly refers to "tissue donation" during the conversation. From the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added):

NUCATOLA: Right now, when they are consenting to tissue donation, they're just consenting to what happens with the tissue after the procedure is done.

[...]

You could do a workshop on tissue donation and what it means. We want to do a little reception at the National Medical Conference or Forum or something.

[...]

I do think feedback is good too. Sure, anyone can come get the tissue donation and send it off. I think affiliates would like to know, we send specimens to research who are working on this and this. I think that kind of positive feedback in the end it will just be a better relationship, it just kind of adds a whole human touch. [The Center For Medical Progress, 7/14/15]

PPFA: "No Financial Benefit" From Legal Donations Of Tissue

Planned Parenthood Statement: Fetal Donations Were Done "Under The Highest Ethical And Legal Standards," And Provide Them "No Financial Benefit." In a July 17 statement, Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood's Vice President of Communications, explained that the organization's clinics "help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research" with "the highest ethical and legal standards." Ferrero noted that the organization received "no financial benefit" from the arrangement aside from reimbursement of "actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue" -- consistent with industry standards:

"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

"A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood's mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case." [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 7/14/15]

Donating Fetal Tissue Is Legal With Consent Of Donor

Federal Law Does Not Prohibit Donations Of Fetal Tissue With Consent. Federal law regarding the use of human fetal tissue does not prohibit the use of donated materials. [Title 42 U.S. Code § 289g-2, Accessed 7/14/15]

Health And Human Services Independent Review Board: Providers May Accept Payment "For Reasonable Expenses" With "Informed Consent." The set of standards outlined by the Health And Human Services Independent Review Board guidebook, the industry standard for medical research, explains that payment for fetal tissue may be obtained "for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues" (emphasis added):

Prohibiting Payments and Other Inducements

Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.

Informed Consent

Potential recipients of such tissues, as well as research and health care participants, should be properly informed about the source of the tissues in question.

The decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of the fetal tissue and any request for such consent that might be required for that use.

Fetal tissue from induced abortions should not be used in medical research without the prior consent of the pregnant woman. Her decision to donate fetal remains is sufficient for the use of tissue, unless the father objects (except in cases of incest or rape).

Consent should be obtained in compliance with state law and with the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. [Health and Human Services Institutional Review Board Guidebook, Accessed 7/14/15]

David Daleidan Is A Former Writer For Discredited Anti-Choice Organization Live Action. David Daleiden, the contact person regarding The Central For Medical Progress' video, is a former writer for discredited anti-choice organization Live Action News. The group has previously come under fire for deceptively editing undercover footage of abortion clinics in order to make false claims about Planned Parenthood. [Live Action News, accessed, 7/14/15; Media Matters for America, 2/4/11; Media Matters for America, 5/31/12]

]]>
http://www.alternet.org/gender/when-most-people-didnt-think-rape-was-wrongWhen Most People Didn't Think Rape Was Wronghttp://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/102341950/0/alternet_gender~When-Most-People-Didnt-Think-Rape-Was-Wrong

The reaction to the Cosby story shows how much the world has changed in the past two decades.

It’s becoming clear that this summer will go down as the one where Americans finally had a reckoning not just with the present problem of sexual violence, but with the past. The Associated Press finally dug up what many considered the smoking gun in the Bill Cosby rape saga, an admission from the man that he had procured sedatives to give women, which aligns with the over 40 reports of sexual assault women have come forward in recent years to share. Then the Huffington Post published a disturbing account from Runaways bassist Jackie Fuchs where she recounted being raped by her manager Kim Fowley in front of multiple witnesses when she was a teenager in the 70s. Now the oldest story of all has come out: Buzzfeed has published a story detailing how Loretta Young’s secret “love child” with Clark Gable was likely the product of rape.

The question a lot of people are asking is, why now? These rapes happened decades ago — in the case of Gable’s alleged rape of Young, a full 80 years ago — so why is it all rushing out in a big, upsetting mess now? Conservatives in particular are focusing on this question, implying in some cases, as with Project 21’s defense of Cosby, that this passage of time should somehow cast doubt on the validity of the accusations.

But, if you take a step back, it’s easy to see why this is all coming out now. As Fuchs explained to the Huffington Post, she was inspired in large part by the current movement on campuses to expose and combat campus rape. “They have to be making the same value judgments about themselves as I made about me,” she said.

Many Cosby accusers have said similar things. “Over the years I’ve met other women who also claim to have been violated by Cosby. Many are still afraid to speak up,” Beverly Johnson explained in Vanity Fair. “I couldn’t sit back and watch the other women be vilified and shamed for something I knew was true.”

But there’s another, darker aspect to all of this: One reason these stories are coming out now is because, at the time, the culture just didn’t have the language or understanding to really grapple honestly with what happened. As Anne Helen Petersen writes in her piece about Gable and Young in Buzzfeed, there were “millions of unwanted sexual encounters that entire generations of women did not talk about” because the culture did not understand them as “rape.” It was seen as something more ambiguous.

What’s really changed in the past few years is that we’ve reached a cultural consensus that all non-consensual sex is rape, after literally decades of feminists working on this issue. It’s not “gray rape” or even “date rape” anymore; rape is just called rape. No matter who does it or under what circumstances, it’s the same crime, just as surely as assault is assault whether you hit a stranger or a friend.

Even the rape apologists have largely conceded this point. While some rape apologists still cling to the illusion that you can force someone to have sex while somehow not raping them, most these days have shifted tactics. In some cases, they accuse victims of making it up or lying about not consenting when they did. In some cases, they accuse feminists of exaggerating the problem for vague power-and-money purposes. Or they will pretend that due process is being abandoned when it comes to rape accusations. Or they might try to argue that feminists are somehow demanding impossibly high levels of consent in order for sex to happen. But less and less often will you see someone try to argue that overcoming a woman’s resistance is normal or romantic or anything other than what it is: Rape. And those who do, like George Will, are largely being excoriated.

It’s important to remember that it wasn’t always this way. Forcing oneself on a woman has never been considered gentlemanly behavior, to be clear, but it was often just not called rape. As recently as the '80s, date rape was portrayed in movies not as rape, but as boys and men “taking advantage.” Revenge of the Nerds, Sixteen Candles and Meatballs all portray young men raping women as little more than just aggressive flirting, suggesting that women either don’t mind or even like being forced.

The idea that it’s always rape to force sex on an unwilling person was considered controversial even in the '90s. Katie Roiphe built her early career arguing, to much acclaim, that it’s not really rape to force yourself on an unwilling woman. After reading in 1993 that researcher Mary Koss defined it as rape to have sex with a woman who “didn’t want to” after she was incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, Roiphe scoffed, “Why aren't college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs?” In these circumstances, Roiphe claimed, “it isn't necessarily always the man's fault” to have sex with someone with someone who doesn’t consent.

The reaction to the Cosby story shows how much the world has changed in the past two decades. Very few people are trotting out the Roiphe argument that it’s only really rape if there are “bruises and knives, threats of death or violence.” That it’s rape to force sex on the unwilling, every single time, is just understood to be true now. The best they can do is what Christine Flowers of Philly.com did, which is to try to argue weakly that maybe the women in question willingly took the drugs to have consensual sex on them. But even she must admit now that it is rape, really and truly, to take advantage of an incapacitated woman.

This shift toward cultural consensus that all forced sex, in every circumstance, is rape, is an extremely important one. As Jackie Fuchs’ story makes clear, just because the culture around you refused to call it rape doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape. While it’s impossible to get in the heads of the people who witnesses Fowley raping Fuchs, it’s not hard to imagine one reason they didn’t intervene — and that some witnesses reportedly made fun of her after— was that they just saw it as “taking advantage” of a drunk girl instead of rape. But her trauma that led to her breakdown and quitting music was still the reaction of a rape victim, even if that word wasn’t as commonly employed to describe her experience then.

It seems the same lesson can be drawn from Loretta Young’s situation. Young’s family claims she didn’t really understand that being forced to have sex was rape until 1998, when she heard the phrase “date rape” and realized that was what had happened to her. Calling it what it actually was, they claim, was an immense relief for Young. “We talked about it, and it didn’t make her angry at him, it just gave her a new frame that I think lifted a lot of her guilt,” Linda Lewis, Young’s daughter-in-law said. Until then, Young had carried around guilt from a culture that blamed victims, even denied that they were actually victims, for supposedly tempting their rapists.

It’s important to remember, as these stories come out, how dramatically the culture has shifted around this issue. Not to excuse those who committed rapes — as the Cosby stories make clear, they knew very well what they were doing was wrong — but to understand why victims often didn’t come forward in the past. Right now, so many rape victims are coming forward that it seems overwhelming, leading some to argue that there can’t really be that many rape victims and that it’s just a product of some kind of mass hysteria.

But it’s not that there are more rape victims than ever before. In fact, there are probably a lot fewer. It’s just that we aren’t accidentally hiding millions of rape victims by calling their experiences “bad sex” or “taken advantage of” or “ungentlemanly behavior.” Now all the rapes are being counted, not just the few that happen under the most extreme circumstances. And now that we have a real understanding of the problem, we can finally take real steps to combat it.

The reaction to the Cosby story shows how much the world has changed in the past two decades.

It’s becoming clear that this summer will go down as the one where Americans finally had a reckoning not just with the present problem of sexual violence, but with the past. The Associated Press finally dug up what many considered the smoking gun in the Bill Cosby rape saga, an admission from the man that he had procured sedatives to give women, which aligns with the over 40 reports of sexual assault women have come forward in recent years to share. Then the Huffington Post published a disturbing account from Runaways bassist Jackie Fuchs where she recounted being raped by her manager Kim Fowley in front of multiple witnesses when she was a teenager in the 70s. Now the oldest story of all has come out: Buzzfeed has published a story detailing how Loretta Young’s secret “love child” with Clark Gable was likely the product of rape.

The question a lot of people are asking is, why now? These rapes happened decades ago — in the case of Gable’s alleged rape of Young, a full 80 years ago — so why is it all rushing out in a big, upsetting mess now? Conservatives in particular are focusing on this question, implying in some cases, as with Project 21’s defense of Cosby, that this passage of time should somehow cast doubt on the validity of the accusations.

But, if you take a step back, it’s easy to see why this is all coming out now. As Fuchs explained to the Huffington Post, she was inspired in large part by the current movement on campuses to expose and combat campus rape. “They have to be making the same value judgments about themselves as I made about me,” she said.

Many Cosby accusers have said similar things. “Over the years I’ve met other women who also claim to have been violated by Cosby. Many are still afraid to speak up,” Beverly Johnson explained in Vanity Fair. “I couldn’t sit back and watch the other women be vilified and shamed for something I knew was true.”

But there’s another, darker aspect to all of this: One reason these stories are coming out now is because, at the time, the culture just didn’t have the language or understanding to really grapple honestly with what happened. As Anne Helen Petersen writes in her piece about Gable and Young in Buzzfeed, there were “millions of unwanted sexual encounters that entire generations of women did not talk about” because the culture did not understand them as “rape.” It was seen as something more ambiguous.

What’s really changed in the past few years is that we’ve reached a cultural consensus that all non-consensual sex is rape, after literally decades of feminists working on this issue. It’s not “gray rape” or even “date rape” anymore; rape is just called rape. No matter who does it or under what circumstances, it’s the same crime, just as surely as assault is assault whether you hit a stranger or a friend.

Even the rape apologists have largely conceded this point. While some rape apologists still cling to the illusion that you can force someone to have sex while somehow not raping them, most these days have shifted tactics. In some cases, they accuse victims of making it up or lying about not consenting when they did. In some cases, they accuse feminists of exaggerating the problem for vague power-and-money purposes. Or they will pretend that due process is being abandoned when it comes to rape accusations. Or they might try to argue that feminists are somehow demanding impossibly high levels of consent in order for sex to happen. But less and less often will you see someone try to argue that overcoming a woman’s resistance is normal or romantic or anything other than what it is: Rape. And those who do, like George Will, are largely being excoriated.

It’s important to remember that it wasn’t always this way. Forcing oneself on a woman has never been considered gentlemanly behavior, to be clear, but it was often just not called rape. As recently as the '80s, date rape was portrayed in movies not as rape, but as boys and men “taking advantage.” Revenge of the Nerds, Sixteen Candles and Meatballs all portray young men raping women as little more than just aggressive flirting, suggesting that women either don’t mind or even like being forced.

The idea that it’s always rape to force sex on an unwilling person was considered controversial even in the '90s. Katie Roiphe built her early career arguing, to much acclaim, that it’s not really rape to force yourself on an unwilling woman. After reading in 1993 that researcher Mary Koss defined it as rape to have sex with a woman who “didn’t want to” after she was incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, Roiphe scoffed, “Why aren't college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs?” In these circumstances, Roiphe claimed, “it isn't necessarily always the man's fault” to have sex with someone with someone who doesn’t consent.

The reaction to the Cosby story shows how much the world has changed in the past two decades. Very few people are trotting out the Roiphe argument that it’s only really rape if there are “bruises and knives, threats of death or violence.” That it’s rape to force sex on the unwilling, every single time, is just understood to be true now. The best they can do is what Christine Flowers of Philly.com did, which is to try to argue weakly that maybe the women in question willingly took the drugs to have consensual sex on them. But even she must admit now that it is rape, really and truly, to take advantage of an incapacitated woman.

This shift toward cultural consensus that all forced sex, in every circumstance, is rape, is an extremely important one. As Jackie Fuchs’ story makes clear, just because the culture around you refused to call it rape doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape. While it’s impossible to get in the heads of the people who witnesses Fowley raping Fuchs, it’s not hard to imagine one reason they didn’t intervene — and that some witnesses reportedly made fun of her after— was that they just saw it as “taking advantage” of a drunk girl instead of rape. But her trauma that led to her breakdown and quitting music was still the reaction of a rape victim, even if that word wasn’t as commonly employed to describe her experience then.

It seems the same lesson can be drawn from Loretta Young’s situation. Young’s family claims she didn’t really understand that being forced to have sex was rape until 1998, when she heard the phrase “date rape” and realized that was what had happened to her. Calling it what it actually was, they claim, was an immense relief for Young. “We talked about it, and it didn’t make her angry at him, it just gave her a new frame that I think lifted a lot of her guilt,” Linda Lewis, Young’s daughter-in-law said. Until then, Young had carried around guilt from a culture that blamed victims, even denied that they were actually victims, for supposedly tempting their rapists.

It’s important to remember, as these stories come out, how dramatically the culture has shifted around this issue. Not to excuse those who committed rapes — as the Cosby stories make clear, they knew very well what they were doing was wrong — but to understand why victims often didn’t come forward in the past. Right now, so many rape victims are coming forward that it seems overwhelming, leading some to argue that there can’t really be that many rape victims and that it’s just a product of some kind of mass hysteria.

But it’s not that there are more rape victims than ever before. In fact, there are probably a lot fewer. It’s just that we aren’t accidentally hiding millions of rape victims by calling their experiences “bad sex” or “taken advantage of” or “ungentlemanly behavior.” Now all the rapes are being counted, not just the few that happen under the most extreme circumstances. And now that we have a real understanding of the problem, we can finally take real steps to combat it.